1. Five extradition cases demanded by the United States have come, during the past eighteen months, before the Extradition Commissioners in the district of Montreal.

2. In four cases the prisoner was committed to await extradition ; one case (Gay-nor and Greene) is still sub judice.

3. All before Mr. Commissioner Lafon-taine.

1. It is a matter of public notoriety, through the newspapers, that in the extradition proceedings against John F. Gaynor and Benjamin D. Greene, a paper called a ' recusation ' was filed against Mr. Lafon-taine, the Extradition Commissioner ; but the government has no official notice of any such proceeding. The question of the magistrate's competency is now before the courts for judicial determination.

2. When the matter is officially before the government, it will be time to say what course the government propose taking in regard to it.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.).

Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to say a few words with respect to a matter that was mentioned in the House yesterday. Let me, in the first place, speak of the letter of February 23rd, which evidently was not received by the Prime Minister. May I be permitted to say that I understood from the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday that there was rather a reflection on Mr. Rogers in the suggestion that the letter had not been received. I rather gathered that the Prime Minister had some doubts as to whether or not the letter was written. Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. gentleman, but it is, I think, right to say that very ample evidence was forthcoming of the writing and of the sending of the letter, and while we at once accept most unreservedly the statement of the Prime Minister that he did not receive it, still I would think that, under the circumstances, it would be a perfectly proper thing to include that letter in the correspondence which is about to be printed.

Since the discussion of yesterday a statement has been made by His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti. I will come to that a little later on. Let me say that I know nothing of the circumstances under which a delegate of the Holy See was in the first place brought to this country beyond what has been stated by gentlemen on the other side of the House, who are well qualified to make such statements, because they have personal knowledge of that which they state.

As I gather from them the Delegate Apostolic came to this country in 1897, not at the Instance of the bishops of the Roman Catholic church in Canada, but at the instance of some forty Liberal members of parliament who are members of the Roman Catholic church. I understand that there was no demand for the appointment of a delegate by the bishops or clergy. In making that statement, of course, I rely entirely

on wliat lias been said by lion, gentlemen on the other side, by the right lion. Prime Minister, by the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa) and others who have very frankly stated the position of affairs in that regard. The delegate came to this country, as the hon. member for babelle has stated, because there was a certain misunderstanding between the laity and the clergy of the church. I understood him to say that the difference arose in connection with the Manitoba school question, which was made a political question. Thus, 1 venture to suggest, not on my own authority at all, but from what has been said by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, that the delegate came to this country in the first place on account of a political question which arose in this country and that his functions have been to some extent at least political and perhaps more political than ecclesiastical.

Now tlie right hon. gentleman has laid a great deal of stress upon the fact that no communication from the executive of Manitoba in regard to the boundary question had come to this government before the month of January last. But, my hon. friend was not unaware that that question had been brought up in the Manitoba legislature. He was not unaware that resolutions, unanimously concurred in by his own political friends in Manitoba, had been passed by the legislature of that province ; and when he sent his letter into the Northwest in the month of September last announcing that new provinces would be created in the Northwest Territories, lie knew perfectly well that the question would be to the fore as soou as the Bill was introduced for the purpose of creating those provinces. Therefore, the boundary question was to all intents and purposes to the fore, and very much to the fore, during the present year in connection with the legislation which is now before the House for discussion and in connection with the distribution of territory attending the creation of these provinces. It lias been very much to the fore during the last few months especially.

I referred yesterday to certain press comments on the subject, but I did not refer to them very fully. I will take the opportunity of mentioning them again, because they are significant. I have here an article which appeared in the ' Northwest Review published in the city of Winnipeg. I am not familiar with the ' Northwest Review ;

I have no knowledge except what is stated in the press in regard to it. Other hon. gentlemen who are more fanyliar with that publication can speak better in that regard. I am about to read a statement which would attract attention coming from any responsible source in this country, and I understand that the source to which I refer is a very responsible one in that regard. The word's of the [DOT] Northwest Review ' are as follows : Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Two days after the ' Telegram ' had trumpeted abroad the Hon. Robert Rogers' great hopes for the western extension of Manitoba, the same wise and prophetic journal deplores the fact that there will be no such extension in any direction. But it omits to give the reason thereof. The only obstacle to the territorial expansion of our province is its iniquitous and cruel school system. Not even the wildest corner of any unorganized territory will consent to saddle itself with such a tyranny. Manitoba must be content to remain small and mean so long as it maintains its small and mean school policy.

Let me say in passing that that small and mean school policy was hailed by my right hon. friend the leader of the government in a speech in this House in 1897, as a happy solution of a very difficult question and one which he pronounced to be perfectly satisfactory to the people of his own province. He said in regard to it :

The only thing I care for is that, whereas, under the Act, 1890, they had not the privilege of teaching their own religion in the schools, by the concessions which have been made, whether they are concessions of new rights or a restoration of old rights, they will have the right hereafter of teaching their own religion in the province of Manitoba.

Further ou:

Well, the moment I found that the people of Manitoba was ready to make concessions which practically restored to the Catholics the right of teaching the French language and of teaching their own religion in the schools, I submitted to my fellow countrymen in the province of Quebec that it was far better to obtain those concessions by negotiation than to endeavour to obtain them by means of coercion.

Further on:

And I venture at this moment to say that there is not a man in the province of Quebec, there is not a man in this country, who, looking at the settlement unbiassed and unprejudiced, will not come to the conclusion that it was a happy solution of a very difficult situation indeed.

I hardly think that the words which I have quoted from the ' Northwest Review ' are applicable to the happy solution of a very difficult situation which was referred to by my right hon. friend on that occasion. I may say in this connection that some criticism was directed against my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) ou account of his statement respecting the confirmation or approval by the people of this country of that settlement in the elections of 1900 and 1904. Why, Sir, my right hon. friend the leader of the government, in 1897, in the same speech to which I have referred, declared that there was ample approval and confirmation of the settlement by the three by-elections which had taken place before the time at which he spoke. Surely, if in the opinion of my right hon. friend three by-elections were a sufficient approval of that

settlement so auspiciously made, my hon. friend from North Toronto did not go too far the other day when he made the remarks to which attention has been drawn m this House. Well, what further V The 'Northwest Review ' is not, so

far as I am aware, under the control or direction of the government or any member thereof, but there is a newspaper in the province of Quebec which declares itself to be the organ of the Liberal party and to be under the direction and control of my right hon. friend the leader of the government. I quote from an editorial statement ot the 11th of February last in that journal. [DOT]Le Solely published in the city of Quebec:

We declare once for all that ' Le Soleil ' is the organ of the Liberal party, and by that fact is under the direction and absolute control of Sir Wilfrid. The supporters of Sir Wilfrid and those who affirm themselves to be such, are begged to take notice of the present declaration.

Now, it will be interesting to know whether or not that is a plain, clear, unvarnished falsehood or whether there is any foundation for the statement made editorially in the columns of that newspaper. It has been stated, and stated without contradiction in this House so far as I am aware-ancl I speak under correction from the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who know more of this matter than I do-that the editorial management of that journal was controlled by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr Fitzpatrick). Further than that, it is stated that now the control of that journal has passed into the hands of Mr. Choquette, a gentleman who, iii the first place, was a follower of my right hon. friend the leader of the government in this House, who, in the uext place, was appointed by my right hon. friend to an important .judicial position in the province of Quebec and who. immediately before the last election campaign, descended from the bench for the purpose of becoming the organizer of my right hon. friend in the province of Quebec. There is an editorial article in this newspaper, 'Le Soleil,' of 4th of April which I will translate for the purpose of reading:

The 1 L'Evenement ' announced yesterday afternoon that ' Le Soleil ' had been bought by the Gouin-Turgeon faction. Our contemporary made a mistake ; it often makes mistakes. The purchase of a certain number of shares in the ' Le Soleil ' Publishing Company by the Hon. Senator Choquette is only an ordinary transaction such as takes place every day in the affairs of every company. As to our journal, it remains as it has always been, the organ -of the Liberal party, and in the future as in the past it will defend the policy and the interests of the Liberal party.

Having defined as far as we can define with the information at our hand, the position of ' Le Soleil ' and its relation to the i

Liberal party in this country, and especially to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, let us observe what that journal has said with regard to this boundary question, because it is sometimes important to consider the utterances of great political organs upon political questions. It is desirable in the present instance to do so, in order to lead up to the incident to which attention has been drawn only yesterday. On the 17th of February ' Le Soleil' editorially made the remarks, which have been translated as follows :

In proportion to her big sisters Manitoba will count as little more than a large county.

This is one of the reasons invoked by Manitoba's delegates to obtain an enlargement ' of her territory.

There is another. Quebec and Ontario have extended their limits, the one to the west, the other to the east, to attain on the north the shores of James bay.

Manitoba aspires to the shores of Hudson bay, on the northeast. It would be necessary to withdraw" her boundaries several hundred miles towards the north, to cut the district of Saskatchewan and Athabaska, and encircle that,of Keewatin.

Manitoba is asking for treble her existing territory.

This enlargement is hardly possible.

The district of Saskatchewan opposes it, at least the part directly interested.

The finances of Manitoba in their actual state are not made to attract the free residents ot the districts. Manitoba has a debt of $4,000,000. The school legislation of the little province is not of a nature to attract the immigrants who people the districts. The Northwest has its separate schools. Manitoba has abolished them.

Every good act has its reward, every bad act its chastisement.

Manitoba will remain lowest with her pretentious law.

Those, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, are very significant words coining from a journal which claims to be under the actual control and direction of the right hon. gentleman. and which .is said-and without contradiction up to the present time-which is said to have been at the moment of these editorial utterances, under the direct control of the Minister of Justice.

Under these circumstances, what took place ? The delegates from Manitoba arrived in Ottawa on the 16th day of February. They came here for the express purpose of discussing with the government the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba ; they met the right hon. gentleman and the Postmaster General, and perhaps some other members of the cabinet. According to their statement, they were told by the right hon. gentleman that if they would remain a few days in Ottawa he would send for them again, and perhaps be prepared to give them an answer. They were not sent for by the right hon. gentleman again although they remained in the city of Ottawa until the 23rd day of February. I do not know whether the exact date has

been given, but before they left Ottawa, and some time between the 20th and the 23rd of February, they received a letter from His Excellency, Monseigneur Sbarretti. I make no criticism upon His Excellency in extending to them that invitation; I make no criticism upon them for courteously accepting that invitation. Let us consider, however, how far the situation had developed up to that time. Legislation in regard to the schools in the Northwest was about being brought down; it even then had just been brought down by the administration- or at least by a portion of the administration, because two members of the administration had not been consulted. I will correct myself and say that legislation had been brought down by the Prime Minister in the name of the whole administration, but with the authority of only a part of the administration. It is true that we had very direct avowals from the Minister of Agriculture and from the Postmaster General yesterday, that they were thoroughly familiar with the terms of the legislation as originally brought down and that they thoroughly approved of it as ox'iginaliy brought down. I am making no criticism so far as they are concerned, because the Prime Minister certainly had their approval and the approval of the Minister of Customs, but he had not the approval of the Minister of Finance nor of the Minister of the Interior.

I do not know to what extent any consultations had been had with His Excellency in regard to the terms of this legislation. The statement has been made in the public press-I called my right hon. friend's attention to it yesterday, I invited him to make some explanation with regard to it-and the statement has been made across the floor of the House, that His Excellency had been consulted with regard to the terms of this legislation. I am not at present making any criticism about that; I am only mentioning it to lead up to what follows, because, educational matters in the Northwest Territories were considered, if in these consultations it is a little difficult to believe that the schools of Manitoba were absolutely ignored in these discussions and that the boundaries of Manitoba were never mentioned. What follows ? The interview took place. I made no comment yesterday with regard to that, because I thought it [DOT]was not advisable for me to do so, as we had not yet the version of His Excellency before us, and I thought we were entitled to have his version of what took place before we should make much comment upon this particular incident. Last night, His Excellency, I believe, gave out an interview which has been published in the newspapers of today, and I will follow the example of my right hon. friend yesterday, by placing the whole of that interview on ' Hansard,' in order that we may have the full benefit of the explanation that has been given.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Monseigneur Sbarretti last night handed out | for publication the following statement :

I think it my duty to declare that the press report of a conference with the Manitoba delegates is not altogether exact and that it is given in such a way as to make a false impression on the minds of the people.

These are the facts :

Taking occasion of the presence in Ottawa of the Hon. Mr. Campbell, the attorney-general of Manitoba, whom I had met in a friendly way more than a year ago, I invited him to come to see me. I never met Hon. Mr. Rogers, nor did I have any communication with him. On the evening before his departure for the west, February 23rd, Mr. Campbell came. I asked him if something could not be done to improve the condition of the Catholics of his province with respect to education. I pointed out that in the cities of Winnipeg and Brandon, for instance, the Catholics were paying double taxes. I urged my request on the ground of fairness and justice and referring to his mission to Ottawa I remarked that from the point of view of the Manitoba government some action on these lines would be politically expedient and tend to facilitate the accomplishment of his object, inasmuch as Catholics In any territory which might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally object to losing the right they had to separate schools and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba. Mr. Campbell then asked me what would be my desire in this respect. I then gave him ihe memorandum which has already appeared in the press.

This is the sum and substance of my interview' with Mr. Campbell. The federal government had absolutely no knowledge of it. It was a private conversation and simply intended to express a suggestion and a desire that the condition of the Catholics in the respect I have mentioned -would be improved. Any other assumption or interpretation is altogether unfounded. I think my right of speaking to Mr. Campbell in a private way and on my own responsibility cannot be disputed.

I notice that my hon. friends opposite cheer very much the statement of His Excellency "that ' Catholics in any territory which might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally object to losing the right they had to separate schools, and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba.' That is what they cheer, as I understand. I am amazed at these hon. gentlemen. The other day we had the ex-Minister of the Interior rise in his place and publicly thank the right hon. Prime Minister, without whose aid, he said, the Catholics of Manitoba could not have been deprived of those rights-publicly thanked the right hon. gentleman for having come to the aid of the majority in Manitoba and prevented the Conservative government from restoring to the minority those rights of which they had been deprived. The

right hon. gentleman has declared this to be a happy solution of a difficult situation; but hon. gentlemen opposite cheer the utterance which I have just quoted. Their attitude is a little incomprehensible to myself, and I think it must be incomprehensible

to any reasonable man throughout the country.

Now, let us observe a little what His Excellency does say. He is an able and accomplished man, brought up in one of the best schools of diplomacy in the world ; a diplomat; a man who, I am sure, would make no suggestion, to Mr. Campbell or to Mr. Rogers, which he did not feel himself able to carry out. And let us see if my hon. friends opposite will cheer a little analysis of what His Excelleucy does say :

I remarked that from the point of view of the Manitoba government some action on these lines would be politically expedient

Politically expedient, mark you

and tend to facilitate the accomplishment

of his object, inasmuch as Catholics in any territory which might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally object to losing the right they bad to separate schools and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba.

Conditions which the right hon. gentleman himself stated in 1897 were absolutely satisfactory not only to himself, but to the people of the province of Quebec. Politically expedient-what does that mean ? Let us consider it for a moment. It would be politically expedient for the government of Manitoba, which desired an extension of its boundaries, to make certain amendments to that law which the Prime Minister had declared to be a happy solution of a difficult situation. Politically expedient-who had the power to extend those boundaries? The government of this country-hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. There was one and only one power in this country that could deal with that question, and that is the power represented by the fourteen or fifteen gentlemen who sit around the Council board of Canada ; and His Excellency declared that ' from the point of view of the Manitoba government some action on these lines would be politically expedient.' Now, there is only one possible meaning to that, and it is this ; His Excellency must have thoroughly believed that he had the authority to suggest to these gentlemen that if they acceded to his demand. to his request with regard to the school laws of Manitoba, there would be such an extension of the boundaries of Manitoba as the government of that province desired. I am reluctant to believe that His Excellency would have made any such suggestion unless he believed he had authority of some kind.

I do not know whether he received authority from or had any discussion with the right hon. gentleman or with any other minister of the Crown. I do not know whether we shall receive any information on that subject. I do not know whether my right hon. friend will think it advisable to give us any information. I do

remember, however, that after the right hon. gentleman had declared, in answer to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and in answer to myself, only last session, that every document in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had been brought down, the Minister of Finance weeks afterwards read a document which had not been brought down, and used it for the purpose of debate ; and the government justified their action in that regard by declaring in effect that if a document of a confidential character came into their possession, they were perfectly justified in denying in this House that any such document existed. I do not know what denials or what statements we shall receive in this regard; but it is interesting to observe another thing in this statement of His Excellency, and it is this : that there is no direct statement in it, so far as I have been able to observe, that he did not have the authority which he assumed on that occasion. He has said, and the Prime Minister has said, that that interview was not arranged on behalf of the government or at the instance of the government; but I do not observe any statement of His Excellency that he did not consider himself to have authority to make the suggestion which he did make to the Hon. Mr. Campbell on that occasion. If there was a supposed authority, or if beyond that there was real authority given on behalf of this government, or given by any member of this government, how does the action of the members of this administration contrast with their attitude in 1896 ? Then their cry, at least in most of the provinces of Canada, was : No coercion ; hands off

Manitoba. That was their answer to a remedial order and remedial legislation proposed by a Conservative administration within the strict terms of the constitution. But what has been suggested might rightly be regarded, I think, as a remedial order of another type-as a remedial order of an unconstitutional and unwarranted character ; and I for one am surprised that upon the statement of His Excellency, which I have no doubt is absolutely accurate in every respect, there should have been this suggestion to the members of the government of the province of Manitoba.

I am not concerned wth the question as to whether or not His Excellency should be recalled ; as I said yesterday, he is not responsible to us in any sense, he is responsible only to his superiors. But the government of this country are responsible to us, and if there has been any suggestion of this kind by or on behalf of the government of this country, or by or on behalf of any member of it, then I say the country will demand, and I think the people will demand, the dismissal or retirement of any member of this government who ventured to confer upon His Excellency any authority

of that kind. His Excellency is not responsible to us, but the members of the administration are. This was uot an ecclesiastical matter, it concerned no ecclesiastical matters in no way whatever, it was to all intents and purposes a purely political matter, the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. I venture to think that in addition to the explanations which were given to the Prime Minister yesterday in this regard, there should be some further explanations made to the House and to the country to-day, in view of the very frank statement which has been made by His Excellency, and which I have brought to the attention of the House. I move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in the exchange of courtesies which usually prevail between the two sides of the House, it has been customary up to this time for my hon. friend, when lie intended to move the adjournment of the House in order to bring up some important question, to give me some intimation of his intention : but my hon. friend, for some reason of his own which I do not know, has thought it advisable on this occasion to depart from the practice hitherto followed by himself and by his predecessors.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Allow me to say to my hon. friend that I received no intimation whatever of the extended remarks which he offered to tiie House yesterday.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I thought it advisable yesterday to give no notice whatever to my hon. friend that I intended to make a statement which concerned myself personally, and to dispute a statement which had appeared in the newspapers on a previous day. Nor did I believe, nor do I believe yet, when a member of this House iiuds himself attacked in a newspaper in a manner which he thinks is unwarranted, that he requires to give any notice of his intention to rise in his place and make an explanation, particularly when the matter is iu no way controversial. It is also the general rule that when a member of the House gives his word in contradiction to alleged facts stated in a newspaper, his word is accepted, nor do I understand my hon. friend to dispute that rule. But today my hon. friend lias thought it advisable, for reasons of his own, to bring up a matter which is essentially controversial, because it implies a censure by the House, and, therefore, I would have expected that the usual courtesy would have been extended to me. Had I been informed of his intention. perhaps I would be in a better position to give him an answer, which I think I can give him nevertheless on this occasion. I must say that in the multiplicity of business which I have to attend to I had read only cursorily the statement which appeared in the newspapers, given by His Excel-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

lency, Monseigneur Sbarretti, the Apostolic delegate, and which my hon. friend read a moment ago. But all this is not very much to the point. We have to-day, according to the hon. gentleman, a new phase of this question, and I am glad to say that we have a new phase, because it is a confirmation and a corroboration of the statement I made yesterday on the floor of this House. My hon. friend referred to my statement yesterday that up to the month of January last we had no information, no official information, of the intention of Manitoba to make an application for an extension of her boundaries. Why did I clo that ? My hon. friend, for a reason, explained the alleged Interview which was said to have taken place between Mr. Rogers, Mr. Campbell and the Apostolic delegate. In that interview Monseigneur Sbarretti was reported to have said that it would facilitate matters if these gentlemen would consent to the restoration of separate schools in Manitoba, and that if that had been done before it would have facilitated the extension of their boundaries towards the west. Well, Sir, I stated that I could hardly believe that His Excellency could have used such language, because then and there Mr. Rogers would have answered, and could have answered to the Apostolic delegate that there never had been by the government of Manitoba any demand upon this government to extend their boundaries prior to the month of January last, and therefore Monseigneur Sbarretti could not, in my judgment, have used such language in the presence of Mr. Rogers. Now to-day we have the confirmation of my opinion that Monseigneur Sbarretti had never spoken in that way to Mr. Rogers, for the very good and obvious reason that Monseigneur Sbarretti never saw Mr. Rogers. There are many things in that interview published by Mr. Rogers which turn out to be uot altogether according to the facts. You have the impression from the interview which was published yesterday, that the Apostolic delegate had sent an invitation to the delegates of the Manitoba government who were in Ottawa, to discuss with him this question of the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. Is that according to the facts as we know them to-day? No, Sir, we find that the invitation of Monseigneur Sbarretti was not at all extended to the delegates of the government of Manitoba, he says he never knew Mr. Rogers ; but the invitation was extended, not to the delegates, but to Mr. Campbell whom he knew before, and whom he treated as a friend. It is a very different thing to have an official interview and conversation with the delegates of a government. and a private interview and conversation between His Excellency and a gentleman who happened to be in Ottawa at the time, and who was a member of the government of Manitoba.

Now, Sir, there are many things alleged

in this interview which I might comment upon. It is quite evident from the explanation of His Excellency, and is indeed obvious to all, that this interview was not a public discussion, it was merely a friendly conversation between two gentlemen who had met together to discuss a question which they had previously discussed. Now, my bon. friend has hinted, or has attempted to create the impression, that the government of Canada was actuated by sinister motives with regard to the province of Manitoba, and that we refused to extend her boundaries because we wished to punish the province of Manitoba for having abolished separate schools. To establish his point he quotes a statement in a Quebec newspaper, the ' Soleil.' which is a newspaper friendly to myself and which claims to be my organ.

Sir, it is very strange that whenever a newspaper friendly to the government says something which the hon. gentleman thinks is favourable to themselves, he at once holds the government responsible for the statement. Well, does he hold me responsible, for instance, for the attitude of the ' Globe ' upon this occasion, or of the other newspapers who do not support the government ? And if I am not to be held responsible for the attitude taken by the [DOT] Globe,' why in the name of common sense should I be held responsible for the opinion of the ' Soleil ? ' There would be just as much reason in one .as in the other. ' Le Soleil ' is a paper friendly to myself. But, because ' Le Soleil ' is friendly to myself and wants to serve me, surely it does not follow that under any circumstances, I am bound to be responsible for everything appearing in ' Le Soleil,' or in any newspaper. It would he absurd to say that because men agree upon political matters, they will therefore see eye to eye in everything. There are other matters than politics on which men can differ in opinion. And it is, to my thinking, a position unworthy of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) to say that the government should be supposed to have been actuated by belief in a certain line of policy because that policy was supported by a certain newspaper. The day has not yet come when the Canadian government must look for its policy or the ground for its opinions to newspapers, however respectable those newspapers may be. We decide these matters upon our own lines and according to our best judgment. But the hon. gentleman has endeavoured to convey the idea- he did not say it in so many words-that there had been a sort of understanding. He did not use the word ' conspiracy,' but he intended to convey the idea, if he meant anything at all, that there had been a conspiracy between the government of Canada,-and in particular myself and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)-and Monseigneur Sbarretti to do certain things,- that is to say, that the extension of the

boundaries of Manitoba should depend on the restoration of separate schools in that province. Why, we have only to take the facts in chronological order as they are known to have occurred to show how unfounded, how' absolutely unfounded, how7 devoid even of the shadow7 of foundation, such an assertion as that made by my hon. friend is. What are the facts ? As stated yesterday, we received in the month of January, towards the end of it, the request of the Manitoba government for a conference. Wo agreed to that conference, and it took place on the 17tli of February. There were present a subcommittee of council and the question was discussed. We told the delegates that they should have an answer at an early day. That answer they had on the floor of this House four days later, on the 21st of February, w7hen I introduced the Autonomy Bills, and in the course of my explanation stated our position with regard to the boundaries of Manitoba was clearly defined. It was two days afterwards, on the 23rd of February, that the conference topk place between His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti and Mr. Campbell. When that conference took place, the decision of this government was already knowrn. We had stated what w7e would do. We had stated that we would reserve the northern portion of Saskatchewan to be annexed to Manitoba or not as circumstances might suggest, and the extension of the boundaries should take place to Hudson bay if there was an opportunity to do so, after conference. The policy of the government w7as thus determined, and could not be affected by anything that might take place in the conference between His Excellency the apostolic delegate and Mr. Campbell. But, Sir, there is more. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) wants to know whether or not there was any question between the government of Canada and Monseigneur Sbarretti as to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. As I said a moment ago, I have not seen the statement of His Excellency,-I have not read it critically-but the answer to my hon. friend's question he already has before him- he has only to read that statement. He has read it, and in it he finds that Monseigneur Sbarretti says explicitly that the government had nothing at all to do with his own action. That ought to suit the purpose of my hon. friend and ought to convince him that he cannot make any political capital on that line. I have only to refer to the words of Monseigneur Sbarretti when he says himself-and his words are in the memory of every member of this House- that he stated to Mr. Campbell that if they would restore the separate schools in Manitoba, it would be politically expedient. Why? In what manner ? In respect of any action to be taken by this government ? No ; but because the people in the Territories would then have no objections to going into Man-

itoba. There you have the whole meaning of this matter of political expediency.

Oh, oh.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

What do these hon. gentlemen mean ? Would they suggest that there is something behind ? They seek to prove their case by the words of the Apostolic delegate, and I give them his words making clear his own meaning. It would be, politically expedient. Why ? On account of any action to be taken here ? No, but because the people in the Northwest Territories who were affected would have no objection to be taken into the province of Manitoba. That is all there is in the matter. L'et, in the face of a statement so obvious as this, you have the leader of a great party doing his best to show that there was something hidden on the part of the government of Canada in this matter. A few moments ago my hon. friend said that we would fight this question out elsewhere. I accept that challenge without any qualification. We will fight out this question in this House. We will fight it out elsewhere. We will fight it out on the charge that hon. gentlemen opposite have brought to the attention of the House. I have no fear about the result. This is not the first time in the thirty years of my experience that I have seen the Tory party playing this part of endeavouring to arouse the prejudices of the people. We shall meet again and shall discuss this question elsewhere. In the meantime, I accept the challenge of my hon. friend that we are responsible to the people ; and that responsibility we shall not decline, but shall meet it in due time.

Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (North Toronto).

Mr. Speaker, the unwonted heat the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) developed in his speech was unnecessary to remind us of the weakness of his argument in the opening, and, in fact, during the greater part, of his remarks. Though so valiant, though he has fought for thirty years and is willing to fight for ever so many years more, he found himself obliged to plead the baby act in the very first sentence of his speech. His hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), he said, had not given him notice that he was going to bring this new and unheard-of and unexpected question before the House. And this great, strong man of battle for thirty years endeavoured to make a little cheap capital against my hon. friend the leader of the opposition by imputing to him a want of courtesy. But, as he thinks it over the right hon. gentleman will remember that yesterday my hon. friend the leader of the opposition gave notice that he would again discuss this matter. And the reason he did not so fully discuss it yesterday was that there had been no word uttered by Monseigneur Sbarretti, and, for very good reasons and very prudent reasons, I think, my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) refused Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

to fulfil the whole purpose of the discussion until Monseigneur Sbarretti had either been heard from or had refused to say anything about this matter. So that I do not think there was very much in that matter of lack of courtesy. My right hon. friend may refine on the technical point but he certainly came here yesterday fully prepared to make as much as he possibly could out of this question politically. My right hon. friend is, I have no doubt, doing some thinking these days.

Hear, hear.

Mr. FOSTER.

And whether he and his colleagues and his followers are doing much thinking or not we may be certain that the people of this country are doing some thinking these days and I must say there is good material and plenty of it. But, Sir, let us ask now what my right hon. friend took such pains to deny yesterday. Lie took great pains to deny absolutely and categorically a great many things which are altogether of secondary importance. For instance he made a point against the Hon. Mr. Rogers because he said that they had not been invited on the initiative of the Dominion government to have a conference in Ottawa with reference to the extension or the boundaries. Neither did Mr. Rogers' statement declare that the invitation was on the initiative of the Dominion government. It might have been implied from that letter that it was or it might not, but in all conscience what difference did it make whether the invitation went from my right hon. friend in reply to a request or whether it was on his own initiative. As far as the facts of the case go what difference did it make ? But there was a very authoritative, a very absolute and a very much cheered denial on the part of my right, hon. friend of that first statement made by Mr. Rogers, fie thought he had triumphantly floored his opponent when he contended that the interview had not taken place on his initiative. He made another strong point in connection with the interivew in that the Manitoba government had from 1896 up to January of this year made no step by way of initiative towards getting an extension of their boundaries. The Manitoba government I suppose is a fairly sensible government. They knew that their legislature had backed up the demand for an extension of territory. It had done it once, it had done it a second time and possibly a third time, but a claim for extension of territory waits generally for the favourable period and during all this time there was the prospect of the erection of new provinces in the Northwest, a prospect coming closer to fulfilment and it was felt that the time when the Territories were to be erected into provinces would be an opportune moment for the Manitoba government to press for an extension of their boundaries,

so that the argument based upon that point was scarcely worth the time it took to state it. It was -within the right of the Manitoba government to choose their own time and the time chosen was that of the approaching creation of provinces in the west. Then they pressed their claim and I say that was an opportune time. The right hon. gentleman tried to make something out of the fact that he stated his policy with reference to the extension of Manitoba's boundaries on February 21st, and that therefore there was no reason at all for any person no matter what his position to attempt to gain influence for any purpose over the Manitoba government by holding out to them the idea that their territories might be enlarged. I take Issue with my right hon. friend in that respect. He did not state in detail the policy, of the Dominion government with reference to the extension of those Territories. He simply stated that they did not propose to extend those Territories until after conference with other provinces, and that steps would be taken at once or as soon as convenient to call the representatives of the different provinces that might be interested to come together and to talk this matter over. It would have been possible to extend the Manitoba boundaries to the northwest, to the north or to the northeast at any time; these districts were all perfectly open and they lay there with all their possibilities. Let us come to one other point, to the very small point that was taken to-day that Monseigneur Sbarretti did not see Mr. Rogers, he did not know Mr. Rogers, he had no conversation with Mr. Rogers, and that therefore the whole argument was against Mr. Rogers. My right hon. friend must have taken leave of his senses. Was the Hon. Colin Campbell down here on a private pleasure trip ? Was he down here as a private citizen ? He was down here with his colleague Mr. Rogers as a delegation of the Manitoba government backed by the resolutions of their legislature as cflicial as any commission could be made. They were here on an official visit and for an official occasion and it does not matter a single bit as to whether this conference was had with Mr. Rogers or Mr. Campbell.

Oh, oh.