William Samuel CALVERT

CALVERT, William Samuel

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Middlesex West (Ontario)
Birth Date
March 3, 1859
Deceased Date
February 22, 1930
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Samuel_Calvert
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=7742d428-dcac-4a71-a208-0a6a083d36cd&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
manufacturer, merchant

Parliamentary Career

June 23, 1896 - October 9, 1900
LIB
  Middlesex West (Ontario)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  Middlesex West (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Liberal Party (January 1, 1901 - January 1, 1909)
  • Chief Government Whip (January 1, 1901 - January 1, 1909)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  Middlesex West (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Liberal Party (January 1, 1901 - January 1, 1909)
  • Chief Government Whip (January 1, 1901 - January 1, 1909)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Middlesex West (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Liberal Party (January 1, 1901 - January 1, 1909)
  • Chief Government Whip (January 1, 1901 - January 1, 1909)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 16)


May 13, 1909

Mr. CALVERT.

I gave the names to my hon. friend the member for Peel.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-THE VOTE ON THE NEW BRUNSWICK CENTRAL RAILWAY MATTER.
Full View Permalink

May 13, 1909

Mr. CALVERT.

We intended to close the debate on Thursday, but we found that, with the number of gentlemen who intended to -speak, it would be almost impossible to do so, and then we wished some arrangement whereby we could reduce the number of speakers and that is what we were endeavouring to do.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-THE VOTE ON THE NEW BRUNSWICK CENTRAL RAILWAY MATTER.
Full View Permalink

May 13, 1909

Mr. W. S. CALVERT (Middlesex West).

1 regret very much I was not in the House when my hon. friend brought up the question-

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-THE VOTE ON THE NEW BRUNSWICK CENTRAL RAILWAY MATTER.
Full View Permalink

May 13, 1909

Mr. CALVERT.

Yes, I have the card in my desk now in the whips' room. I can show it to you, and I can show it _ to my hon. friend from Peel, and it contains the names of Mr. Turgeon, Mr. Nesbitt, Air. Todd, Mr. Carvell and Dr. McAllister. I said that while perhaps not all of these would speak I expected that most of them would. I put their names on the very

envelope that I showed to my hon. friend and I have the names of the Conservative members on one side and the Liberal members on the other. When I was asked by many of my friends if the vote would take place before eight o'clock, I said no, that it would be impossible. I accepted that as the statement of my hon. friend as to the arrangement of the debate, and I expected that it would be continued from one side to the other as has been usual for many years. Consequently when the debate came to an end I was very much surprised, just as other members of the House were. I am quite sure there was nothing wrong so far as we were concerned, nor do I know that the assistant whip intended to take any advantage, because it may have been an accident that a member from the opposition side did not rise. At the same time it was understood and expected that the debate would be -continued and that the leader of the opposition, the member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member (Mr. Doherty) would speak on the opposition side. I was very sorry I did not hear what my hon. friend had to say, but I know that we were endeavouring to -carry out the arangement in good faith, and I would like it to be understood that there was nothing done by this side of the House that was not done in good faith. Neither do I suppose that there was any intention on the other side not to carry out the arangement in good faith, and consequently if thp debate had been carried on as has been customary it would have continued until the middle of the night.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-THE VOTE ON THE NEW BRUNSWICK CENTRAL RAILWAY MATTER.
Full View Permalink

May 13, 1909

Mr. CALVERT.

Well, I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I regret I was not in the House when my -hon. friend from Peel brought up a question in regard to the vote taken the other day. I was engaged in the Railway Committee and we have only finished our labours a few moments ago so that I could not be present -when my hon. friend spoke. I was very much surprised to find a letter in the papers from my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor), the chief whip of the opposition, in regard to why the debate was not continued. The chief whip of the opposition was not present the night before the vote was taken, and consequently I made the arrangement with his assistant, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Rlain). I do not think my hon. friend says that my statement was wrong with regard to the names he gave me of those he expected to take part in the debate. When we make arrangements of that kind it is not always customary to say that such and such a member shall speak and then such and such a member shall follow him. But it is the custom of this House that when arrangements are made that a certain number of members shall speak on each side of the House, that the members on each side should alternate in the debate. During the debate the other day I showed the member for Peel the names of the members that we expected on this side to take part in the debate, and they were largely the members from New Brunswick. There was no hesitancy at all about showing him the names. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) informed me that five members on the opposition side intended to speak, and consequently, just as I said to the ' Free Press, the debate was to be continued as we expected, and the question was whether we were going to be able to conclude the debate on the following day in a reasonable time. So I asked my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) to try and reduce the number of speakers on his side, stating that I would do the same, and that we would have at least three members to speak on each side of the House.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-THE VOTE ON THE NEW BRUNSWICK CENTRAL RAILWAY MATTER.
Full View Permalink