Mr. FIELDING:

I am afraid I am responsible for that language and I would like to explain the situation. Of course, nothing from the United States comes under the preferential tariff, whether it be sugar or anything else. The object of that clause is this: The aim under the former arrangement-and I am quite sure we are not desirous of changing it now- was to give a bona fide preference to the West Indies. If the West Indies can send their sugar to England and Scotland and have it refined there and come into Canada that sugar would bona fide be entitled to the preference, whereas if other sugars coming from foreign countries were sent to England and Scotland and refined there, if the British preference applied, it would not carry out the purpose of our agreement.

Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :

It

would be very easy to have a definition making it clear that the provision would apply to sugar coming from Great Britain or some of the British possessions: The

present language is certainly open to the construction I have placed on it. Apparently the sugar may be refined anywhere provided the raw sugar was produced in a British colony. That seems to me to be the meaning of the sentence. If the intention is that it should apply where sugar produced in a British colony like Trinidad or Jamaica, and was afterwards refined in Great Britain or in any British possession, and subsequently introduced into Canada, it would be quite easy to claim language that would cover such a case.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I do not think anything has worked out wrongly or that there has been any real difficulty under the wording of this clause. It is a clause which was, I think, the subject of a great deal of careful study by my hon. friend the ex-Finance Minister in introducing what is really, after all, the whole bases of this particular kind of trade convention -his British preferential tariff of 1897. The wording of that Act stands unchanged, and we are merely continuing what in the light of experience has been found to work well.

Mr. FIELDING:

I admit that the

clause standing alone would be capable of that interpretation, but as the British

preference is distinctly confined to British countries, I think it is quite evident you have to read that into the clause.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

For years it has worked out all right under this interpretation.

Mr. PEDLOW:

The resolution says distinctly that articles specified in schedule A. shall not be subject at any time to more than fifty per cent of the duties imposed on similar goods as set forth in the general tariff. This means that a number of these items scheduled in the general tariff would be allowed to come into Canada at a very much lower rate of duty than the same articles coming from Great Britain.

I am sure that cannot be the intention of the Government.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I do not know anything in that section in which Great Britain is interested in the slightest. She does not grow sugar, limes or shaddocks. This is done having regard particularly to West Indian products, and the Act is entirely followed in the present resolution.

Mr. PEDLOW:

Does not Great Britain manufacture sugar?

Mr. FIELDING:

Not raw sugar.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Sugar is

exempt from that provision.

Mr. PEDLOW:

What about fruits, items

103 and 104?

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

There is no preference given to those items; those are fruits preserved in brandy.

Mr. PEDLOW:

The resolution states, of course, the exception, "goods, other than tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, spirituous, or alcoholic liquors;" but these items 103 and

104 refer distinctly to preserved fruits. We get a quantity of preserved fruits from England and Scotland. Unless you dot every "i" and cross every "t" in the resolution, the department is likely to put a strictly literal interpretation on the Act, as, for instance, what happened last year in their classification of manufacturers, resulting in an immense amount of trouble. I would like to see this Bill put in such form that when it is passed no room will be left open for any expensive law suits -expensive on the Government and on individuals-caused by (too literal rulings of the department.

Mr. FIELDING:

If Great Britain produces the same articles, undoubtedly the argument of my hon. friend is correct and

me rates of duty would vary. The only answer of the minister is that Great Britain does not produce the same things as a rule. It may be so in regard to fruit. It is a well understood principle that in no case will we charge Great Britain a higher duty than any other country. But as this resolution is worded there is nothing to say we shall not charge goods from Great Britain a higher rate than similar goods from the West Indies, and I am afraid we are going to do it under this agreement if there is any competition.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

It was expressly provided in the agreement with the West Indies that we should be at perfect freedom to make arrangements, preferential and otherwise, and that the West Indies should have the same liberty. The West Indies gives us a quid pro quo for which it gets a concession from us. Great Britain does not give us that quid pro quo, so we have a perfect right under the agreement with the West Indies to charge the lesser rate of duty agreed upon, and to charge on articles coming from the other parts of the Empire a preferential rate.

Mr. FIELDING:

My right hon. friend is getting back to the very old ground that we should not give England a preference unless she gives us a quid pro quo.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

But we do.

Mr. FIELDING:

We do without a quid pro quo. My right hon. friend says we are justified in not giving it to England because she does not give us a quid pro quo.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

England has .a preferential tariff of thirty per cent now, although she does not give us a quid pro quo. We do not take that preference away from her; but when we make an agreement with the West'Indies under which they give us reciprocity, and we give it to them in return, I do not think there is any injustice done to England.

Mr. PEDLOW:

If you will permit me to refer back to the items that have already been passed to clear up the situation, items Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23, I think it will be admitted that if these schedules are to obtain as they stand there will be a distinct discrimination against Great Britain in respect to those items. They are cocoa, paste or "liquor," preparations of cocoa or chocolate in powder form, preparations of cocoa or chocolate not otherwise provided for and confectionery. According to my reading of the resolution, those will be imported from

the Wejt Indies at a very much lower rate of duty than from Great Britain under this Act as. it reads. Therefore we are discriminating against Great Britain.