412

A—s

inents —the best way is to leave to each parliament to decide for itself, and for the people whom it represents what is best for that community. That is a principle upon which we ought to be all agreed. It is a question for His Majesty's Government. It is a question for the political parties represented here —as we represent the political parties of our respective communities—to determine whether it is better in the interests of the United Kingdom that they should continue this system which they have at present or that they should go as far as, for my part, I would like them to go. Therefore, I have no more to say upon this point. For this reason, 1 say it is better to agree to stand by the Resolution of 1902, as it was. lam free to say that at that time when we passed this resolution, we were induced to pass it to some extent — I will not say immediately, but certainly influenced in our determination—by the fact that at that time, certain duties had been put upon cereals in a moment or urgency during the war, and we thought at that time that it would be good policy to give a preference upon these. But the British Parliament thought differently, and removed the duties instead of giving us a preference. They thought they owed it to their people not only not to give a preference upon that, but to remove altogether that which they conceived did not perhaps at the time but might have put a burden upon the great mass of the consuming people of the country. For my part, I enter upon no discussion upon the moot point whether the imposition of a duty wouid or would not increase the price of bread. This is a matter which in some instances might do it, and in others perhaps might not do it. This is a matter which would be altogether regulated by circumstances, and I pass it over to those who have to deal with this question within the United Kingdom. Having said that much, I come now to the next resolution: " That the " Prime Ministers present at the Conference undertake to submit to their " respective Governments at the earliest opportunity the principle of the " resolution, and to request them to take such measures as may be necessary "to give effect to it." It may be, perhaps, not out of place to say a word as to what has been done with regard to giving effect to this resolution. The third resolution stated this : " That with a view, however, to promoting the " increase of trade within the Empire, it is desirable that those Colonies "which have not already adopted such a policy, should, as far as their " circumstances permit, give substantial preferential treatment to the " products and manufactures of the United Kingdom." What has been done since 1902, during the five years which have intervened, to give effect to this resolution? It is a point which perhaps may be considered here. Canada has done everything which it could do in that respect. Before that time we had adopted the system of preferential trade, and we have maintained it unimpaired. 1 understand that the South African Dependencies here represented, have also by their system of a commercial union amongst themselves, given a preference to the British products in their own markets. They have given it in the line that Canada has given it, that is to say, covering everything. Now Australia has done something. In 1906, Australia introduced a system of preference. I remark this, that it was not until four years after the Conference of 1902 that Australia did this. Why i Probably because there were difficulties to adjust in Australia. Mr. DEAKIN : We were then organising our whole Commonwealth Government. Sir WILFRID LAURIER ; You did it as soon as you could. Then according to the figures which were put on the table the other day by

Twelfth Day. 7 May 1907.

Preferential Trade. (Sir Wilfrid Laurier.)