171
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
132
Take
We
quantities of goods, and the statistics also show that England is not holding her own, or is barely holding her own, of late, and that a large proportion of these are coming from foreign countries. If these goods are being imported, then, by an increase of the duty, thereby increasing the preference to Great Britain, the goods are still going to be imported, but we can turn the trade, as Mr. Seddon has pointed out, from the foreigner to Great Britain. the class of goods to-day, in which there is 30 per cent, duty with one-third off, the British goods come in at 20 per cent. There is thus 10 per cent advantage to the British manufacturer. If you increase to 45 per cent., and still keep your proportion of one-third, your preference then becomes 15 per cent., and that is an additional advantage to the British manufacturer as competing with the foreign manufacturer. admit that if our tariff were prohibitive, Mr. Chamberlain's view would be correct, but where our tariff is not prohibitive, where we are importing goods from abroad, partly from foreign countries, partly from Great Britain, if we increase the preference-no matter how we do it, the goods came in from abroad--if you increase the preference in favour of Great Britain, undoubtedly Great Britain is going to get a substantial advantage. Another point in the resolution that we would have to take exception to is that you ask Canada to affirm the principle as if it were something that she has yet to do, while, in reality, she has been doing it. New Zealand comes forward and says,
"We will give you 2 per cent, preference"; but we have been giving you 11 per cent. preference for several years. We would like Mr. Chamberlain to remember that the thing of which other people have been talking we have actually done, and we want to be credited with the results of that and not have it ignored in the calculation altogether. We do not want to be penalised; we do not want to be told that the 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. preference granted for years is to be ignored altogether, while a preference of 2 per cent. is to be regarded as a very proper concession.
We think that view is one which we have a right to urge on behalf of Canada, and that in the general calculation of the matter you must credit us not only with what we intend to do, but with what we have already done.
The SECRETARY OF STATE: And so long, Mr. Fielding, as you do not ask anything in return, I think that is absolutely true.
Mr. FIELDING: But if you tell us this preference is of so`little conse- quence that it is not to be placed to our credit at all, you must simply force us to consider whether it is worth our while to continue it. We have to fight a battle on this question. Some of our manufacturers fight us; they say, We are ruined by this very severe competition." Then if we find that on this side of the water preference is not valued, can we continue it?
The SECRETARY OF STATE: You go further, of course, than any- thing that I have said. We admit that the preference is valuable, although we think we have shown you, and we think you yourselves are inclined to admit that it has not had all the results that we both expected from it; but, what- ever it is, so long as it is a free offer voluntarily made, without expectation of
any direct return, I need not say that we accept it most gratefully, and if you complain that we do not now take it into account in regard to a reciprocal proposal, that is because when you made us this offer you made it in the most precise terms as a voluntary offer for which you did not ask, and would not ask, any return. That was most inpressively stated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the occasion of the last Conference, and it is to that therefore that we referred ourselves in saying that any new proposal must be, of course, considered separately, and upon its merits.
Mr. FIELDING: If I may say a word as to that, we said at the time we would not ask a preference, because we knew at that time the policy of the Imperial Government was decidedly adverse to the imposing of any duties on food ́products, which are the chief things that Canada has to export. We felt that to ask that at that time would not only be refused, but would be the cause of embarrassment to the Imperial Government; but we did.
BAY that the time might come when there might be a re-adjustment of policy
}
133
in England, and when that time did come then we ventured to hope we would get the benefit of it; but if we were to take the view that this is not to be placed to our credit now, as we offered it, as Mr. Chamberlain has said—we offered it voluntarily and without expectation of any direct return-we should be forced to the conclusion that we made a mistake in giving it at all, and that it would pay us better to go home and repeal it, and then come back and say, We have got something to trade with." I am sure, Mr. Chamberlain, you would not wish to put us into that position, which would be a very unfair one; but still that would be the logical outcome of your present position. But we have come to this that we may go back to Canada and have this preference repealed, and then come back in a position to say,
"Gentlemen, we have something to offer you"; that is the way of our American friends' diplomacy in tariff matters; we do not want to follow.
Sir EDMUND BARTON: I wish to say something on what Mr. Fielding has said in this matter. That is with reference to the effect of a preference by way of raising a duty against the foreigner. Without saying that any preference given by Australia would exactly take that form I should like to point out that 1, in a great measure, agree with Mr. Fielding, for this reason, that if it is possible to have two scales of duty you render it harder for the foreigner to get into your market. To that extent, therefore, there must be an advantage to the British import. I wanted to add something to what I said before as to the difficulty about the resolutions as they stand, and that is this: that I think we should do nothing in our present transactions which would tend to plunge us into party factions, because the value of any arrange- ment that we are likely to come to would be in its stability. If, then, you render it difficult for the Government and its supporters to carry out what it is willing to do, or, on the other band, you place the Government in such a position that it can only carry out the resolution of the Conference by needlessly provoking a party fight and winning that fight at the expense of a declaration from the opposition that when they get into office they will alter all that; in either of these cases you do a thing which would militate against the stability of the proposal and very likely do something to deprive it of all practical effect.
COASTWISE TRADE.
The SECRETARY OF STATE: Perhaps we will take up one of the other draft resolutions which were submitted for consideration. There is in the first place a question in regard to coastwise trade.
Mr. FIELDING: I think, sir, there is a difference of opinion between some of the authorities and His Majesty's Government as to the present position of this question. We have been led to believe that there are no treaties which would interfere with our freedom in dealing with the customs. I understand Mr. Balfour does not quite concur in that view, and that there may be treaties which would embarrass our freedom. When the matter was mentioned before I expressed the opinion that, so far as Canada was concerned, we would have no objection to the general principle or resolution with the understanding that it was to be made reciprocal, so the nations which give us the privilege of their coastwise trade would be entitled to claim the same privilege from us. I rather thought that Mr. Chamberlain assented to that view, and the resolution is drafted accordingly. I am told, however, that that perhaps does not represent the final conclusion of His Majesty's Government. There is some doubt upon that point. A suggestion was offered that instead of having the rule broadly reciprocal, some provision might be made to deal with exceptional conditions by some special arrangement, such as by license or something of that sort. It is argued, and with much force, that foreign nations might accept the condition of reciprocity inasmuch as they would get much and give little or nothing, and therefore that our conditions are so unequal-that it is not a matter in which reciprocity would give us fair play. Speaking generally
would say that if some loophole were allowed whereby under exceptional conditions R 3
}