Mr. SPROULE.

So far as that went, I was.

Well, let me refresh his memory. The question in that debate on which the member for East Grey spoke, was whether there should be a regulation of the traffic or a prohibition of the traffic. Let me read the opinion of the member for East Grey on that occasion. I quote from the 'Hansard' of 1886, April 7, page 550. After dealing with the subject generally, the hon. member for East Grey proceeded as follows :

Now while the restrictions proposed by the Minister of Inland Revenue may be sufficient in one direction to remove this evil, I think they will hardly be sufficient to entirely control this article. I believe they are in the right direction. and if there are those in the country who wish to buy and use oleomargarine and butiter-ine instead of butter. I think they should have the right to do so;-

Is that my hon. friend's opinion to-day V

Mr. SPROULE.

No.

Well, open confession is good for the soul, I commend him for his confesson. Let me refresh his memory further, for he went on to say :

-but let it be distinctly understood that they know what they are buying ; let a stamp and the name be put on each package so as to clearly show what It is.

As my hon. friend has modified his views, I will not press him any further, because he has openly confessed that his views have undergone a change. The hon. member for Leeds, however, stood by his guns, he was determined to legalize the use of oleomargarine in this country. He stood by the resolution to put a duty upon it, a tax upon it, to protect, as the Minister of Customs said, and encourage its manufacture.

Mr. TAYLOR.

Quote what the member for Leeds said.

' I will give the hon. gentleman's resolution, which I suppose explains his meaning.

That it is expedient to bring In a Bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, butterine and other substitutes for butter.

Not to prohibit but to regulate the manufacture. He said a great many things that were not very pertinent to the question, but here is something he said which I will read. It will be found in the ' Hansard,' of the 7th of April, 1886 :

I asked at the same time that an excise and customs duty of ten cents per pound be placed on all oleomargarine, either imported or manufactured in the country-

Mr. TAYLOR.

Hear, hear.

-and I am glad to say that the government, true to its protective policy-the national policy -came down with a resolution placing a customs duty of ten cents and an excise duty of eight cents per pound on all these substitutes. For this act I am sure they will receive the thanks of every farmer in Canada.

For encouraging the manufacture of oleomargarine, butterine and other fraudulent substitutes for butter, the member for Leeds says he is sure the government will receive the thanks of the farmers of Canada. Will the hon. gentleman repeat that sentiment to-day V And to-day if he had a chance, would he support a policy of protecting and encouraging the manufacture of oleomargarine, butterine, and other frauds of this character ? Is that his position as a friend of the farmer ? He goes on to the same effect.

Mr. TAYLOR.

Read it all.

I will have some mercy on this committee. I will show how the question was disposed of. This proposition of the member for Leeds to encourage the manufacture of oleomargarine was challenged by the member for North Brant, to-day the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). In amendment to the motion of the Minister of Customs of that day, the then member for North Brant moved the following:

The importation of these articles into Canada is hereby prohibited under a penalty of $200. together with the forfeiture of such goods and packages in which they are contained.

What was the fate of my hon. friend's measure ? The fate of it was that he had to abandon it. The government threw him overboard. The government found that they had to abandon the proposition to license the manufacture of oleomargarine. They repudiated my hon. friend's policy and ultimately adopted the course which had been marked out by the then opposition as to what was in the best interests of this country. My hon. friend underwent a change of heart. He receded from his position and adopted the policy suggested to him by the present hon. Minister of Customs so that prohibition of oleomargarine became the law of the land.

Mr. TAYLOR.

I am not surprised that the hon. gentlemen occupying the positions of Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and Minister of Labour and Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) should condescend to try to distort the facts for the purpose of endeavouring to injure a member of the opposition and to take credit from the late Conservative government for

the resolution moved by a member then in opposition which the government accepted. What are the facts of the case ? I introduced a resolution just as the hon. Minister of Agriculture is introducing a resolution to-day because it affected the revenue.

What was your resolution ?

Mr. TAYLOR.

I am going to read the resolution. I moved the following resolution :

That it is expedient to bring in a Bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, butterine or other substitutes for butter.

Could the hon. gentleman not have introduced a resolution in the terms of the amendment that the present hon. Minister of Customs presented to the House ?

Mr. TAYLOR.

I will give the hon. gentleman the information. After my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), the late member for Cornwall, Mr. Darby Bergin, who had thoroughly studied this question, myself and other hon. members sitting behind the government of that day had proved conclusively to the government that there was something in the resolution which I had introduced, and that the government should deal with the question, the government took it up notwithstanding the opposition of the present hon. Minister of Agriculture who made the speech that I have just quoted opposing the action of myself and the government in interfering with the subject at all. Another hon. gentleman who then sat on the opposition side of the House, Mr. Jackson, a lumberman up west, opposed the proposition, because, he said, if it were adopted he could not go over to the United States, buy oleomargarine and send it to his camps to feed his men. The present right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said it was the most outrageous proposition ever propounded in this House and I met with the fiercest opposition from other hon. gentlemen then in opposition some of whom are now on the treasury benches. My resolution was defeated. I shall quote the words that the hon. Postmaster General has just read. The hon. Minister of Customs misrepresented me in saying that I brought in a Bill asking for a lower duty for excise than for customs. The hon. gentleman made a misstatement and I want him to apologize and to take that back. The hon. Postmaster General read my words in which I said :

I asked at the same time, that an excise and customs duty of ten cents per pound be placed on all oleomargarine.

What is ten cents a pound ?

That was to regulate it.

Mr. TAYLOR.

Is that mot better so far as prohibiting the manufactured article coming from the United States is concerned than the Bill that the hon. Minister of Agriculture proposes ? Ten cents per pound was prohibition and more than prohibition and that is the duty which I asked the government to impose. But, when the government came down with a resolution, they proposed a customs duty of ten cents a pound and an excise duty of eight cents a pound.

That is just what you wanted.

Mr. TAYLOR.

Where does the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals get his information ?

Here, if the hon. gentleman will allow me. The hon. gentleman said :

And I am glad to say that the government, true to its protective policy-the national policy -came down with a resolution placing a customs duty of ten cents and an excise duty of eight cents p!er pound on all these substitutes For this act. I am sure they will receive the thanks of every farmer in Canada.