The resolution seems to go a little further than that. It says:
And also that no person shall offer or accept for export or import.
If a Canadian dealer is going to accept for import those goods coming from the United States, why not subject him to the same inspection as the man Who is producing in Canada? My hon. friend says we are going to examine their regulations, and if we find their regulations protect us sufficiently, why should we require an inspection on this side? My answer is that the regulations may be all right. You are making regulations in this country. Why do you appoint an inspector? Your regulations may be the best in the world, but what would those regulations be worth unless they were complied with? And how will you know they are complied with, unless you have your inspector who will inspect the produce and see that the produce which is offered on the market complies with the requirements enacted by my hon. friend's department for the protection of the consumer? That is what I think was intended by the resolution. Otherwise why should the words, " or offer for import " be necessary? It would only be necessary to say, " shall not be imported," if the theory of the hon. gentleman is to hold good. My objection is to the acceptance of any regulation made by the United States, and the fact that, if you find the regulations satisfactory you 'are going to conclude they have been complied with. It is not the regulation, so much as the compliance with it, that protects the consumer.