OTTAWA DEBATE

Hokitika Guardian, 28 October 1932, Page 5

OTTAWA DEBATE

TARIFF QUESTION COMMONS REVIEW POSITION. v ' (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, October 26. Mr J. H. Thomas was questioned in tho, House of Commons regarding the Canadian Government's attitude towards the present anfl-dumping surcharge, which i'3 based on th e rate of exchange. . Mr Thomas said th’at sympathetic consideration had been • promised as to the possibility of reducing, if not wholly abolishing, the duty in so far as it applied to the imports of the United Kingdom. < Moving the second reading of the Ottawa 'Agreements Bill, in the Commons, .Mr Thomas (Dominions Secretary) said that the Opposition argument that nothing was dope by agreements to ease the unemployment situation, was answered in the steel industry indirectly, and the coal trade directly. He asked the Labour Party to consider the future position pf unemployment tinless the Dominions were placed in a position to deal with the problem of migration.- If they were put in a position to welcome hundreds of thousand# of British : peopt e every year," something would, b e done to mitigate the unemployment problem. The British delegate* deliberately agreed to the'scheme of meat restrictions, as a means of increasing the wholerale prices. Unless' there were such an increase there, was no possible hope for the producers. ■ Regarding 'Russia, the British delegates had undertaken that if any nation, by any particular action, prevented the’ value of preference being enjoyed by the Dominions, necessary steps , would be taken to give effect to the intentions of the British Government.

Mr Dunn moved the rejection of the Ottawa Agreements Bill, on behalf of Labour, on the ground that it increased the burden of indirect taxation and would do nothing to solve unemployment. ( He sSai'd that the Ottawa agreements would not give work to a single man, but had strangled the World Economic Conference beforehand. Whereas international co-operation was required, w-e were setting out op economic war, which might lead to a blood feud, which would /destroy civilisation.

THE DEBATE IN- THE LORDS. ■no beneficial sacrifices. LONDON, October 26. ' In the House of Lords.’- Lord -Arnold drew attention to the Ottawa Conference, which he described ns a supreme failure owing to Canada’s refusal to agree to the progressive liberation of trade within the Umpire. A. complete breakdown was only avoided by Britain accepting inoredibly unfair lopsided provisions. The Master of Elibank said: “Lord Arnold has failed to awake to the new era. Free trade, as we know it, is fortunately dead. Future issues only concern high or low tariff-- preferences.” Lord Beaverbrook said : i There were Ho sacrifices about the Ottawa agreements, which would benefit both Britain and th e Dominion peoples. 'He regretted that the agreements did not go further in the direction of f ree trade the Empire, '.an ideal which h 6 was sure would ultimately be realised. He strongly favoured the duty on foreign meat. Lord Hailsham replying said that ■Ottawa did not build .an edifice, but ■laid the foundations which would result. in better trade within th e Empire.