I think in any case I have
a right of reply. The remarks of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) were purely of a detailed character, and, I do not think we should take much time in discussing that -phase of it.
With -regard to the criticism of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. EdWards), I -think it is quite immaterial whether the egg is marked in Seattle or in Vancouver. The point is that we can compel the man in Canada to have them marked before he sells them. We naturally would compel the man over whom we have control. I can assure the ho-n. member there -will be no trouble and he need not worry. But the hon. member came -back, as hon. members on that side of the House do, to the matter of protection. He said that to put an increased protection on eggs would be sufficient. I say to him, I would also put protection on American eggs. But that should be only supplementary to this legislation, for this reason: that increased duty means increased expense, whereas the resolution I have suggested would -mean no increased expense -to the consumer, and in these days we are supposed to cut down the high cost of living.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) goes one better than I do and says they can be marked for half a cent a dozen, so that will not increase the cost to the consumer. I am quite willing to vote for a higher duty on eggs coming in from -the United States. But the hon. gentleman could not resist the temptation-it is ingrained in him-for -political effect to twist my remark. He says I stated, "I am willing to vote for the increased duty on eggs coming from the United States, provided that -it does not interfere with the Prime Minister." I will subscribe any sum of money to a local charity if my hon. friend will find any such words of mine in Hansard.
Subtopic: PROPOSED APPLICATION TO DOMINION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT