I think I have the floor.
I was observing that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth was very careful in the statements he made to say: "If they are correct;" "If I am correctly informed." 1 say that no solicitor in a police court would make a statement like that to a justice; no counsel with his brief would make a statement of that kind, because he either knows or he does not know, and what right has he to cast reflections upon honourable citizens of this country and wreck their reputations so far as he can by innuendos based upon "if I am correctly informed;" "if the facts are as I am told"? He dare not place his name and reputation behind them, but he hedged with the qualifications "if," "if," "if," and that is the basis upon which this bill has been met. Read Hansard; read the statements that were made as to the operations of Mr. McFarland, - and in every case the hon. member indicated that he had with respect to those operations a knowledge which came to him from some source, and which certainly I do not possess. Then in order to save himself with his brief, he says: "If I am correctly informed." Is that parliamentary discussion? Is that the amenities of debate, when you attack and1 then say "if I am," more especially when the circumstances in this case are that the man against whom the statements have been made is lying on his back and cannot leave his bed?
Subtopic: PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS