OTTAWA BILL

Southland Times, Issue 21855, 4 November 1932, Page 7

OTTAWA BILL

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE STAGE COMPLETED AMENDMENTS REJECTED (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright.) London, November 2. During the committee stage of the Ottawa Agreements Bill in the House of Commons, Mr J. Tinker (Labour) moved that three months’ notice must be given before the orders under the agreements could be revoked. Mr Neville Chamberlain said that Britain was not likely to frustrate or revoke agreements which had taken such trouble to make, but must contemplate the possibility of one of the Dominion Governments being superseded by another administration which would refuse to abide by the agreement. If the amendment were carried such a dominion would immediately cease to fulfill its obligations, but Britain would be compelled to carry hers out for three months Sir Herbert Samuel said that Mr Chamberlain’s admission of such a possibility showed the dangers the Liberals had emphasized. If an election were fought in Britain, as one must be, on the tariff issue and another party came into power, the agreements must be continued until the expiration of five years. It would be better to provide for termination by either side with six months’ notice. Mr Tinker’s amendment was rejected by 249 votes to 55. Major C. R. Attlee (Labour) moved a new clause declaring that Britain should not require the dominions’ consent if it was -desired to remove the duties from foreign goods. The Bill at present, he said, denied the sovereignty of Parliament and subjected Britain’s fiscal policy to the dominions. Mr L. Hore-Belisha, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said there was nothing in the Ottawa agreements which took away Parliament’s legal right to reduce the duties at any time. The Act could be replaced by any Parliament. If Sir Herbert Samuel were returned with a majority he would be entitled to remove the duties. All the Government had said was that while in law nothing could bind Parliament for a fixed period, the Government would use all its authority to see the British signatures fo the agreements were honoured. Mr George Lansbury, Leader of the Opposition, said that Labour would not be bound by that undertaking, which was a dangeious thing to good relations with the dominions. The new clause was rejected by 268 votes to 57. The Bill was put through the committee stage and the House adjourned.

RATIFICATION MOTION CANADIAN AMENDMENT. (Rec. 7.0 p.m.) Ottawa, November 2. An amendment was moved in the House of Commons to the motion to ratify the Economic Conference agreements by Mr C. G. Coote (United Farmer, Alberta) which, if adopted, will make ratification include an undertaking that the Canadian dollar will be brought down to parity with the pound sterling. The House votes on the Anglo-Canadian trade treaty on Thursday. AMENDMENT DEFEATED. (Rec. 8 p.m.) Ottawa, November 2. The House of Commons defeated the motion to make ratification of the Ang-lo-Canadian trade treaty contingent on the establishment of parity between the Canadian dollar and the British pound by a majority of 38. FARMERS’ REQUEST VOTE ON TREATY ADVOCATED. Winnipeg, November 2. The convention of the United Farmers of Manitoba adopted a resolution demanding that the treaty with the United Kingdom be submitted to the vote of the people before ratification. They refuse to support the demand of the United Farmers of Alberta for a Government five cent bonus on wheat on the grounds that it would clash with the organization’s principles of free trade. AUSTRALIAN AGREEMENT CRITICISM BY MR SCULLIN. (Rec. 10.5 p.m.) Canberra, Novembers. “Under the crack of the party whip the agreement may be ratified by this Parliament, but it cannot last,” declared Mr J. H. Scullin in the House of Representatives when opening the Opposition attack on the Bill which embodies the Ottawa decisions. He particularly attacked Article 12 which, he declared, took powers from Parliament and gave them to the Tariff Board. To bind this and the next Parliament on the fundamental principles of the tariff policy would be to rob the people of their rights at the next election.