2
(i) Figures are woven shirts of cotton and m.m.f.
2.
On BLOUSES Stewart said there was no case because
imports had fallen in the first five months of 1969
after levelling out in 1968.
Furthermore he said that
the total market was falling and this was the main reason
for the fall in production. Jones argued that five
months' figures were not enough to show anything.
Production was undoubtedly continuing to fall and imports
in 1968 amounted to not far short of 50% of apparent
consumption. The two major suppliers, Hong Kong and
Japan, were both restrained on cotton and polyester/cotton
and this no doubt at least partly recounted for the
flattening out of the growth of imports. The Canadians
would argue that the removal of restraint would recreate
the situation of market disruption and, indeed, that this
still existed. Jones concluded from this that Hong Kong
should be prepared to continue the restraint but should
ask for growth.
3. As regards TROUSERS Stewart argued that Hong Kong's
share of imports had fallen in 1968. But he could not
dispute that there had been a large increase in total
imports and that Canadian production was declining.
Jones pointed out that Hong Kong was now recovering its
share due to a rapid increase in exports of polyester/
polynosic trousers in the last nine months or so. The
annual level of these was now running at about 250,000
dozen. The Canadians knew about this but had said that
they would not ask for restraint on these trousers at
the present time. Imports now held well over 50% of the
market and it would be straining Canadian good-will too
far to argue that the present restraint on polyester/
cotton trousers should be removed. He felt that not to
rock the boat in this way was the best means of
maintaining Hong Kong's high level of trade in this item.
Stewart argued that the large exports of unrestrained
../3