I have given the answer already, but I have no objection to repeating it. The point is this: having
pointed out this conflict of statements with the Government, I asked the Prime Minister whether the board was to be reconvened as intimated by the Minister of Finance two or three days before, and the Prime Minister gave a clear and unequivocal answer. To make sure that there was to be nothing conditional about it, I inquired whether this reconvening was to be conditional or unconditional, and was told that it was to be unconditional. Now, what is to be thought of a minister of the Crown, in the face of these facts, coming to Parliament to-night and asserting that I am the father of the reconvening of the board, and that, because I inquired whether it was to be done unconditionally, therefore, all the delay connected with the reconvening is attributable to me? Is that the only sense of reason the minister has? Is that the best he can do?