If this is the only instance that the Minister of Public Works can give it is one which does not help his case very much. I do not think it necessary to add anything to the statement 1 have made. The minister started out with the statement that he could not corroborate the statement which I had made, but before he concluded his speech, he himself absolutely corroborated the precise statement which I had made, viz.: that the wharf had not passed from the hands of the company to the Crown as alleged by the ' Globe '.
While the discussion may be somewhat out of order I presume the House will accord me the privilege of replying to the hon. member for York. I first desire to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. member for York has not denied yet the statement
I would appeal to the sense of fairnesa of hon. gentlemen opposite to_ allow me to make a brief reply, and for this reason that the hon. member for York did not confine himself to the statement in the Toronto ' Globe ', but went on with a general discussion.
Order. A question of privilege partakes of the nature of a per-
sonal explanation. The Minister of Public Works having made his statement it was quite fair and within the rules that the hon. member for York should reply. The minister may be permitted to reply to the hon. member on the understanding that no new matter is to be introduced. Solely upon that ground perhaps the minister may be allowed to complete any explanation, but to bring any new matter would be irrelevant.
I will not introduce any new matter. I was calling attention to the fact that the hon. member for York has not denied the statement which was contained in the report of the Toronto 'Globe' that he had sought to lead members of this House to believe that the Department of Public Works had been expending money upon private property. In regard to the agreement of transfer-