Canada, House of Commons Debates, “British Columbia Debates”, 1st Parl, 4th Sess (23 March 1871)

Document Information

Date: 1871-03-23
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1st Parl, 4th Sess, 1871 at 247-248.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).


Thursday, March 23, 1871

[Page 247]


Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER announced that the Government had made no further arrangement for special reports of the debates on the British Columbia measure.

Hon. Sir A.T. GALT said he was sorry that the Government had arrived at that conclusion, for the debates would be particularly interesting to British Columbia, and would not reach there in as full a form as they would otherwise have done had his suggestion been adopted. He trusted that the energy usually displayed by the reports would on this occasion supplement the necessity that would exist for full reports.

Mr. JONES (Leeds North and Grenville North) believed the Government deserved credit for the decision to which they had come. He was about to proceed further, when

The SPEAKER called him to order. There was no question before the House.

Mr. JONES (Leeds North and Grenville North) thought he had as good a right to speak on the subject as other hon. gentlemen.

The SPEAKER explained that a minister of the Crown had simply answered a question put on a former occasion by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and there the matter should drop.

Mr. JONES (Leeds North and Grenville North) said he was sorry to be obliged to resort to extreme measures, but he had a precedent for it only the other day. He moved the adjournment of the House. (Laughter.) He continued at some length to explain that he was elected on the Independent ticket, and though he might have erred in judgment, he had always endeavoured to preserve economy in the administration of public affairs. (At this point the hon. gentleman’s voice became inaudible, owing to the slamming of desks and other noises in the House resorted to, to silence him.) He did not approve of going to any additional expense in the British Columbia matter.

The SPEAKER suggested that it would be as well to postpone the discussion until the British Columbia Bill should be before the House.

Mr. JONES (Leeds North and Grenville North) bowed to the opinion of the Speaker, and withdrew his motion.

Mr. RYMAL rose to reply to some remarks made by the hon. member for Leeds and Grenville, with respect to his (Mr. Rymal’s) course in Parliament. The hon. member had seen fit to take him (Mr. Rymal) to task and would fain make the House believe that he would encourage extravagance in the administration of public

[Page 248]

affairs. He (Mr. Rymal) believed that his course would show that he had advocated economy whenever it was in the interest of the public, and he had no desire that every man’s utterances should be fully reported in the case. He had no desire that a column should be given to his own speech, though the hon. member for Leeds might. Whether that hon. gentleman was reported in the regular way or not, he (Mr. Rymal) could not say, but he had frequently noticed that if the hon. member only spoke for five minutes in the House, a column report of it, at least, appeared in the papers. (Laughter.)

No doubt the hon. member engaged a special reporter to record his wise sayings. As for the charge of inconsistency and want of independence, he (Mr. Rymal) left it to those who had known them to say whether he or the hon. member for Leeds was the more deserving of the charge. The hon. member’s course had been what Wm. Lyon Mackenzie had said of such members—that those who boasted of independence in the House were those who never could be depended on. (Laughter.)

Leave a Reply