The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1911. CANADA AND RECIPROCITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7867, 1 August 1911, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1911. CANADA AND RECIPROCITY

After the passing of tho Reciprocity Treaty by tbo American Congress the question of Canada’s action became acute, and tbo Government of the Dominion has now determined to settle tho matter by appeal to the people. As tlie results of tho census have not been applied to tbo electoral map of tho Dominion it is evident that the decision is' an important one. The particular question of -whether the Government ought or ought not to have waited for tho rearrangement of the electoral map is one for the Canadian public to discuss and settle. We at a distance ore more concerned with tho chances of the election. A recent report, that of Mr Grigg, British Trade Commissioner for tho Dominion of Canada, furnishes some data which in this connection are not uninteresting. Tho report is admittedly partisan in tone and feeling, and therefore its conclusions will have to he taken with reserve. Still, the facts presented in it are of some weight in the Canadian controversy. It states, for example, that for tho period under review the investments in tho aggregate of British money in the Dominion have trebled tho investment of American moneys, the figures being British capital £1,121,000,000, and American capital £46,000,000. It is added that almost the whole of the former has been invested in tho public works of the Dominion; but not an American dollar has gone into any of tho great transcontinental railroads of the Dominion, the bulk of the American cash having found! its way into private investments, snob as mining concessions, timber acquisitions, factories, and so forth. On the anti-Reciprocrity side it is maintained that tho British investor views tho chances of American preference with disfavour, and to furnish a counterblast it is mentioned that this investor is beginning to turn his attention to 'the private side of Canadian affairs, especially in the direction of setting up branches of factories doing good business in Britain. This tendency, it is added, will be counteracted by any reciprocity arrangement to thei disadvantage of British capital. The theory based on these figures is that “tho predominant importance of the British investor’s practical interest in the business of Canadian development ’ ’ is tho basis of tho opposition to the Reciprocity principle in Canada. The appeal, in short, is an appeal for certain invested capital, and from the evidence we have before ns of Canadian feeling it seems hardly probable that this appeal will succeed. While no doubt there are investors who would like to continue under a system which gives them special privileges in the Canadian market by shutting out competitors primary industries stand at the base of Canadian prosperity, and it cannot he doubted that these will benefit by destruction of the harrier against trade -with neighbours on the American Continent. The argument that in order to allow ‘ ‘ British investors ” to enjoy certain monopolies Canadian farmers should continue shipping produce to London and get lower prices instead of Tailing it at less cost into the United States and obtaining increased returns is not one to command much respect. It is both unsound and vicious. The opponents of Reciprocity would, we think, find it more profitable to continue their agitations about n annexation ” and ■“ danger to tire Empire ” than to challenge the promised change on economic grounds.