T-e-t-r-a-c-h-l-o-r-o-p-ht-h-a-l-i-c. I am satisfied for my hon. friend to have a try at pronouncing that. I could give another one that might be easier with only about fifteen letters if the minister thinks he could try to pronounce it.
As I said, there are more than 200 items padded into this list, and as regards not more than one or two did we ship 400 pounds. Just imagine that, and yet we have used more paper in printing this treaty and the customs books with these extra pages than the whole thing is worth!
A protective tariff, if properly and faithfully applied, would have the same effect if administered by a Liberal or a Conservative government. I am willing to admit that. I do not care about anything but the principle;
I am not disturbed by the government taking over protection. As I said a moment ago, the very highest compliment is paid to us by their adopting something to which they have been diametrically opposed for ten years. What is worrying me is this: will they give
it a fair trial? Are they taking it to seek to destroy it? Is it a game to fool the people? I say a game, because the government have tried more than once to do that kind of fooling. On the other hand, do they now actually believe the tariff on the items referred to will accomplish any good purpose? If it is true that it will accomplish a good purpose, why did they delay ten years to put it into, effect? Will the people believe that the government has had a change of heart? Will they believe that the government has a heart at all, or is this nothing but a change to catch a few votes? Will the people believe that those who have opposed an increase in duty on butter, eggs, fruits and vegetables have now sincerely changed their minds? I think it can be demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that almost the entire cabinet and most of the members on that side of the house have, during the past few sessions, gone on record against any increase in tariff on these articles. A few weeks ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) argued in this way: Well, if you do put a 'duty on butter and eggs it will not do any good, because in a little while production will overtake consumption and you will be back where you were before. Why does he not apply that to his furniture? Instead of that he brings the other minister to his relief and gets him to raise the duty on furniture.
Subtopic: THE BUDGET