As I said just now, if it had been for a duty on oleomargarine as against the article made in Chicago I would have voted for it. But I would not make it a crime for a man to make oleomargarine in Canada or to import it, and as I told one gentleman who spoke to me on the question, there are mechanics in our town who, during their long period of unemployment in the past year, had all they could do to keep their families without seeking charity, and they were obliged to buy oleomargarine, because they could not afford butter. If I went back to one
of these men who told me that he could not afford butter at 50 cents and therefore had to buy oleomargarine at 25 cents, he would naturally say to me: " Why did you vote for a law that took that substitute from my children's bread so that they have now to eat dry bread? Why did you do it? What answer could I make to such a query? I know that the hon. member (Mr. Neill) is a reasonable and rational man, and I ask him, how could I answer such a question? I simply could not. I would have voted for a duty, but not for the total prohibition of an article, thousands of tons of which were used in Great Britain as food during the war.
Subtopic: THE BUDGET