[...] weight, and he thought that the building might
be finished in a cheap and substantial manner.
PUBLICATION OF RED RIVER PAPER
Mr. Mackenzie called the attention of the
House to the fact that some newspapers had
published correspondence with respect to the
Red River affair, including also the names of
parties interested, notwithstanding the injunction recommended some days ago.
Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald said his attention was drawn to this matter last night by the
hon. member for Châteauguay, and he had told
the gentleman that he regretted very much
that the papers had been published. However,
he was determined to enquire into the
circumstances.
Mr. Mackenzie said that while, personally,
he would wish to extend to the Press all facilities for obtaining information, still,
in a matter
of this nature he thought that the public papers
should show some regard for the public interests, and should have refrained from publishing
those documents. If this matter were to be
considered at all, he would suggest to the
leader of the Government that there was a
Standing Committee to which it could be
338 COMMONS DEBATES
March 10, 1870
referred as a question concerning the privileges of Parliament.
Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald said the whole
thing depended on ascertaining the sources
whence the information was derived; the writers of this correspondence might have
to be
removed from the Press, in order to procure
information on that point.
Hon. Mr. Holton said the peculiarity of the
published correspondence was that it purported to be drawn from the report laid before
the
House.
Hon. Mr. Holton—If the Committee finds
that the information comes from extraneous
sources, what course is there to be followed?
Hon. Sir. A. T. Galt said the chief indiscretion was in allowing the suppressed parts to
appear. If it should turn out that the correspondence laid before the Committee had
been
given to the press from the Committee, then
there would be shown a gross breach of
privilege.
Hon. Mr. Howe said he never saw a copy of
those papers till he saw them that forenoon.
The publication of the papers could only be
accounted for on the grounds that a person
who had figured in them had shown them to
the press.
Mr. Blake suggested whether it would not be
better to refer the investigation to another
Committee than the one which had had the
papers before them.
Mr. Scatcherd observed that it was a question whether the House should proceed to
investigate an isolated case. If a rule were to be
made to apply, then it should be to all cases.
Mr. Mackenzie said that the press ought to
get all the returns that were brought down,
where nothing injurious to the public interests
was concerned; but the peculiarity in that case
was that the press were informed it would be
imprudent to publish those papers until laid
before the Committee. It was this circumstance
which constituted it an offence to publish the
papers. When the leader of the House solemnly
declared those papers should not be printed
because it would be dangerous to the public
interests, then they should not have been
published.
Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald moved that the
Committee, to which was referred the North-
West correspondence, should be revived with
power to enquire into the improper publication
of the correspondence.—Carried.