OTTAWA AGREEMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1932, Page 5

OTTAWA AGREEMENT

ITS RATIFICATION DEBATE IN COMMONS TO-DAY. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, October 17. When Par ban lent re-assembles on Tuesday, the ratification of the Ottawa agreements will taka, precedence over all other business. The legislation must be paused before November 15th., when the free entry of Dominions’ goods to Britain ends. If the, Opposition obstruct th e proposals, the Government will not hesitate to use the guillotine. Mr N. Chamberlain opens the proceedings with a. full statement of the Ottawa agreements. Than lie moves a aeries of resolutions. The procedure will be similar to that of the Budget. The first division will be taken on Tuesday night. It is expected that the debate in the House of Commons will last for three weeks, the legislation reaching the House of Lords about November Bth.

UNITED STATES TRADE LOSS. UNDER OTTAWA AGREEMENT. NEW YORK, October 10. The “New York Times’ ” Ottawa correspondent reports that trade experts there estimate that the loss of the United States on-its exports to Britain under- the Ottawa agreements, will be much greater than on those to Canada, and the correspondent characterises the total loss as “a very severe blow to the United States.” He lists 200 million dollars’ worth of exports, including priirinry products, which the Dominions, chiefly Canada can supply to Britain, which include wheat, lumber, copper, zinc and apples.

AUSTRALIA AND AGREEMENT. TWO CONFLICTING SPEECHES. (Received this day at 9.30 a.m.) SYDNEY, October 17. Speaking at the annual dinner of the Sydney Chamber of Manufacturers, Mr Lyons defended the Ottawa agreement. He said that nothing had been agreed to that would impair Australian industries, but the result of the agreement would be an increase of Empire trade, the creation of increased employment, the promotion of agricultural development, and the encouragement of efficient Australian industries. Mr Seullin declared that the Ottawa agreement took away the right of the people to determine the policy of the Government of the day.