1. How many returned soldiers are employed on the permanent staff of the House of Commons ?

2. How many temporary employees are engaged during the present session?

3. How many of them are returned men?

Mr. SPEAKER:

No. 1. 7; No. 2. 333; No. 3. 55.

1. What is the total number of signatures of cattle owners, received to date, to petitions, asking for the establishment of a bovine tuberculosis restricted area in the whole province of Nova Scotia?

2. How many head of cattle have been subjected to the tuberculin test in Nova Scotia?

3. How many head of cattle have been slaughtered as a result of reaction to the test?

4. What is the number of cattle so slaughtered in each county in Nova Scotia?

5. What is the number of signatures received to petitions, as referred to, from each county in Nova Scotia?

6. What is the total cost to date of the establishment of restricted areas in Nova Scotia?

7. What is the total amount paid or due owners of cattle slaughtered in Nova Scotia under this policy?

8. What is the result of and report on the immunilogical preventive, curative and trans-missibility work of the research councils and other bodies in reference to tuberculosis?

9. What was the amount expended during the last fiscal year upon such research work?

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I should like to direct the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to an item published by a very reliable news service bureau at Washington which reads:

American Letter 495

February 25, 1928.

We learn from Ottawa that the Canadian government has notified Washington of its readiness to go ahead with conversations preparatory to the signing of a convention looking toward construction of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway. The Canadian note contains no important stipulations to which the American government is likely to take exception.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister

whether such a note 'has been despatched, and if so, if he will lay it on the table at the earliest possible moment on the theory that the Canadian people are more entitled to this knowledge than a news bureau.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

In reply to my hon. friend I would say that the item which he has just read is without foundation in fact.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):

Might I interject that I was informed on pretty good authority, not that this had gone through judt in the way the despatch says, but that the Canadian government had sent a communication to Washington, and that a reply was on the way from Washington. If such is the case, would the Prime Minister have both notes tabled as soon as possible?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

If my hon. friend will tell me his authority, I will tell him whether it is worth while. No communication of the kind indicated exists to my

Forty Minute Rule-Interruptions

knowledge, and I know of no note of the kind on the way back. The whole thing is imaginary.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

I should like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), now that two months have passed, when we may expect the report of the Canadian National Railways for 1927 to be tabled. It should be done at an early date.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways): I was asking the 'president, about the report just this morning. The audit is proceeding as rapidly as possible, and the president informs me that he hopes to be able to supply me with the accounts early next week. As soon as he does so, the report will be tabled. This is a little earlier than it is usually tabled.

Mr. BENNETT:

It is two months now. PRIVILEGE-MR. EDWARDS (Frontemw)

On the orders of the day:

Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forked questioned the accuracy of certain statements which I had made in my speech of the day before and intimated his regret that under the rules of the house he was not permitted to express his opinion in language as strong as he would like.

I wish also to express regret that under the rules of the house I have no other alternative at the present time but to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. Time will disclose whether his statements or mine are more worthy of credibility.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege- and I think it is one that is really in order, for it affects not only myself personally but every member of this house, except possibly two. It refers to the interruption of the rules of the house as regards debate. In Hansard of yesterday -at page 889 we find an hon. member asking the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) a question, to which he replies:

I am ready to answer the question, if I am allowed the extra time.

Mr. Speaker: It is not within my privilege to extend the time of any hon. member. I have to see that the forty-minute rule is observed.

My point of privilege is, that that is in direct contradiction to the understanding under which the rule was passed last session. By referring to Hansard of last year, repeated references will be found to the understanding that interruptions would be allowed for. Hon. members will remember that I opposed the introduction and passing of the rule, and I canvassed members in support of my opposition, but I was met with this objection: The rule won't hurt us because we have been told that interruptions will be allowed for. At page 1437 of Hansard of March 22, 1927, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is reported as follows:

I desire to know if, under this ride-

That is, the forty-minute rule.

-a member is to be allowed for the time taken up by interruptions.

Mr. Speaker: I may be allowed, not to take part in the debate, but to explain. Whenever closure is invoked the time taken up by any interruptions of a member is credited to his twenty minutes. It is an unwritten rule in congress, for instance, where similar restrictions are in force, to allow a congressman extra time for interruptions.

On the strength of that and other similar statements, with which I will not detain the house, there is no question that these assurances were a material factor in getting the forty-minute rule accepted, and I submit that they should be given effect to now.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):

Mr. Speaker, in support of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said, I may add that that was the understanding in the committee last year when we discussed the rule for a considerable time. Not only so, but this understanding to my mind is impliedly confirmed by the rule itself:

No member .... shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.

Well, if a member is interrupted by questions being put to him, he surely cannot be said to be speaking at that particular time, and therefore I do not see how the time so taken from him should count in his forty minutes.