Mr. SPEAKER:

With reference to the question asked of me yesterday by the hon. member for North Simcoe, I beg to state that the proper manner for the House to express its disapproval with regard to any order passed by the Governor General in Council is to move a humble address to the Crown. The authorities are as follows:

"The subjects upon which addresses are presented are too varied to admit of enumeration. They have comprised every matter of foreign or domestic policy; the administration of justice; the confidence of Parliament in the ministers of the Crown; the expression of congratulation or condolence, and in short, representations upon all points connected with the government and welfare of the country." (iMay, p. 546).

Bourinot is to the same effect, as follows :

"It is now the usage to move for addresses only with respect to matters affecting Imperial interests, the regal prerogative, or the Governor in Council." (Bourinot, p. 2456).

"The subjects on which the two houses may address the sovereign or his representative in this country are too numerous to be detailed at length. They may relate to every matter of public interest, to the administration of justice, to commercial relations, or to the political state of the country; in short, to all subjects connected with the Government and the welfare of the dominions." (Bourinot, p. 259).

Mr. SPEAKER:

Does the hon. member

rise to a question of privilege?

Mr. McQUAERIE:

Yes. I find in the Journal-Press of to-day, an article reading as follows:

Appointments Within Province.

W. G. McQuarrie, New Westminister, moved an amendment providing that, except as to the city of Ottawa, appointments in any province should, in so far as possible, be made from residents of that province. He said that, within the last few days, application had been made for an additional stenographer in the Government offices at New Westminster. He had been informed that one would have to be sent from Ottawa. He thought his amendment a reasonable one. It would not be advisable, of course, to have all the appointments made in Ottawa from Ontario.

Sir George Foster opposed the amendment on, the score that its tendency would be to cultivate provincialism. The country, he said, should not be cut up into sections. There was no valid reason why a man from British Columbia should not have an opportunity of serving in any part of Canada.

H. H. Stevens (Vancouver Center) said that residents of British Columbia were not afforded proper opportunity to take part in competitive examinations. Owing to the short notice given it was impossible to compete and there were no examinations held in British Columbia at all.

Sir George Foster agreed that there should be equal opportunity given to residents of all the provinces.

Unless there were some safeguards provided, Mr. Cockshutt remarked, all the plums would go to residents of Ottawa and the large cities.

This is the particular part:

Sir Sam Hughes stated that when positions in the Civil Service were vacant they should whenever possible, be filled by men residing in the constituencies in which the vacancy occurs. -

An amendment to this effect was moved by Mr. Maclean and carried by the House. It had no reference to the inside service.

Mr. iMcQuarrie's amendment stood over.

As a matter of fact, the last part of that report to the effect that the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) was accepted is not correct. I have in Hansard of yesterday the amendment which was finally proposed by the hon. the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Maclean) and adopted. It is this:

Excepting as to the Inside Service, all appointments to any position in a province shall, so far as practicable, be made from bona fide residents of such province.

The point being in regard to the province and not to the constituency as had been suggested by the hon. member for Victoria. The remarkable part of this is that the other paper, the Ottawa Citizen, publishes an exactly similar report in almost the same words. It seems to me a most re-matkable thing that two papers of such

standing as the Citizen and the Journal Press

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. It is not in order for the hon. member to discuss the why and wherefore of the publication of certain articles in newspapers. If the hon. member wishes to take exception to any statement published in the press it is competent for him to do so.

Mr. McQUARRIE:

In another part of

the Citizen of yesterday, on the front page, there is a statement to this effect:

Mr. McQuarrie of New Westminster wanted soldiers to be exempt from examination, but Hon. A. K. Maclean, who is piloting the Bill through the House, thought that this would not be in the best ' interest of the service, although declaring that the returned soldier must be looked after. In withdrawing his amendment, Mr. McQuarrie expressed the belief that the House would be willing to adopt it next session.

I wish to deny that I made a proposal of that kind. What I suggested was in the form of an amendment to the effect that the Civil Service Commission should be given the power in certain cases, at their discretion, to exempt soldiers from taking this examination. I might afso point out in this connection that this morning's edition of The Journal-Press has exactly the same paragraph, also on the front page.

Mr. T. VIEN (Lotbiniere):

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the conference of farmers now assembled in Ottawa have communicated with you requesting the favour of being received by this House. I would like to know whether my information is correct, and if so, whether it is your intention to communicate that information to the House for immediate consideration, as the conference is likely to conclude its work during the day, and if the House intends to appoint an hour to receive the farmers it must be done right away.

Mr. SPEAKER:

In answer to the hon. member, I may say that I have just received a communication from the Chairman of the meeting at the Russell Theatre.

Sir SAM HUGHES:

What is the gentleman's name?

Mr. SPEAKER:

R. H. Halbert. It would perhaps be in order for me to communicate the letter to the House.

Russell Theatre,

Ottawa, Ont,, May 14th, 1918.

The Honourable

E. N. Rhodes,

Speaker, House of Commons,

Ottawa.

Sir:

On behalf of several thousand Ontario farmers, I beg to transmit to you the following resolution just passed, and to say that, encouraged by the reception recently accorded the President of the American Federation of Labour, we are confident the request will be granted.

"That this meeting instruct the chairman respectfully to ask the House of Commons to receive him and two delegates he shall name, at the sitting of the House this afternoon, to hear their address upon the situation in the country and asking that democracy be honoured in the prosecution of the war and all other matters of Government."

The messenger who brings this will respectfully await an answer.

I am,

Most respectfully,

(Signed) R. H. Halbert,

Chairman.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Mr. Speaker, did you say the letter is from the Ontario farmers?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The Ontario farmers. It is, of course, for the House to determine as to what its desire may be in the premises, but .so far as I am aware there has not been a case where the course asked for in this communication has been followed. The reference to the presence in this Chamber of the President of the American Federation of Labour is hardly in point, because he was the representative of a .great organization in another country. The right Hon. Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Viviani, were also received by this House. In all three oases the privilege was accorded to gentlemen from outside Canada, and it seems to me, with all deference to this organization, that it is a precedent which it may be somewhat dangerous to establish. If I may venture to say so, the receiving of one organization in this country will open the door for similar cases in great numbers to follow. However, I leave the question to the House.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):

Do I understand the communication comes from the farmers of Ontario, or from the farmers of the whole of Canada?

Hon. R. LEM1IEUX (Maisonneuve) It comes from the President of the Ontario farmers.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

My understanding is that the request was to come, and did come, from all the farmers assembled in

this city representing not only the farmers of Ontario but those of other provinces.

That makes the case all the stronger. There can be no doubt that Mr. Speaker, having given communication to the House of the request made this morning by the farmers who are assembled in the city, has discharged his duty. Mr. Speaker has no further power in this matter. If action is to be taken it must come from the House itself, and that action, of course, is expected to be directed by the leader of the House for the time being. .

Your statement, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labour, 'belonged to another country, does not constitute a good precedent. I imagine that the representatives of a Canadian association should have as much privilege here as the representative of an association of another country. I would further point out that in 1910 the Canadian House of Commons received a delegation of farmers from the West who presented a petition on the subject of reciprocity with the United States. It is true that delegation was not received with the Speaker in the Chair, but they were received in the Chamber of the House, the Government and their supporters, and members of the Opposition, being present, But, of course, the matter is in the hands of the Government for them to take action.