The first item on the Order Paper is the motion by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. This motion was formally moved by Senator Comyn and seconded by Senator O'Doherty, and it is only necessary now for the Minister in charge to give some explanation of the motion.
Trade Agreement Between Free State and Canada—Motion.
Cathaoirleach
Debate resumed on the motion:—
That the Seanad approves of the Trade Agreement between the Irish Free State and the Dominion of Canada, signed at Ottawa on the 20th day of August, 1932, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 26th day of October, 1932.
The terms of the agreement between the Irish Free State and the Dominion of Canada are easy to understand. The agreement contains three Articles. By the first of these Articles, the Irish Free State is committed to this:—That goods, the produce or manufacture of Canada, imported into the Irish Free State, cannot be made subject to other or higher duties than those paid on similar goods the produce or manufacture of any other country. Article II requires that goods, the produce or manufacture of the Irish Free State, imported into Canada, cannot be subject to other or higher duties than those paid on similar goods the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Article III provides that the agreement, when brought into force, shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of its coming into force, and thereafter until the expiration of six months from the date on which either Government shall have given to the other notice of its intention to terminate the agreement. This Article also provides that the agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Parliaments of the Dominion of Canada and of the Irish Free State.
In view of the terms of the agreement, it is necessary to have reference to the agreement, concluded on the same date, between the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, which was also laid before the Oireachtas. That agreement, which will operate for the same period, provides for the reduction of the duties in operation in Canada upon a large number of articles when consigned from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and in view of the agreement between the Irish Free State and Canada, the same reduction will operate in respect of these goods when consigned from the Irish Free State. It is true that, in so far as a large number of these goods is concerned, we have no interest; but there are some of them in respect of which we had, in the past, a fairly substantial trade with Canada, a trade which was seriously impaired by recent increases in the Canadian duties and which it is now hoped to regain either in whole or in part. Trade between the Irish Free State and Canada was never very substantial and has, since the establishment of the Irish Free State, been very heavily in favour of Canada.
The principal items of Saorstát produce exported to Canada were the following—and I give them in the order of importance:—Agricultural tractors and parts, woollen tissues, biscuits, horses, raw wool, and drink. The total value of our exports to Canada for the year 1930 was about £133,000, whereas the value of our imports from Canada in that year was £772,000. In 1931 and the early parts of the year 1932, in consequence of the operation of certain duties which carried an imperial preference clause, imports from Canada were increased considerably, particularly in the case of bacon, although the emergency duties imposed in July operated to terminate that trade. However, although the position has tended to redress itself, it is still, as it always has been, that the balance of trade was substantially against us. In recent years imports from Canada have been declining in value, whereas exports to that country have been appreciating in value, but the movement was not sufficiently great to alter the position to any material extent. It is not possible, of course, to say definitely to what extent the operation of this agreement will affect our export trade. It is undoubtedly correct to say that there is available in Canada a valuable market for a number of the products which I have mentioned, a market which has not been availed of in full up to the present but in respect of which we hope action will be taken by the industrialists concerned to improve their position in the near future. Following the conclusion of the agreement and the return of the Delegation from Canada, various meetings were held with persons interested in the exportation of these particular goods and some effort has been made in respect of a number of the industries concerned to explore the position in Canada by sending representatives to that country.
The effect of the agreement upon our position is nil. I mean by that, that the adoption of this agreement and the bringing of it into force will not involve any change in the duties now in operation here. In fact, as far as we are concerned, it merely continues in existence the condition that has always operated up to the present. It is wrong, of course, to assume that that position would have continued in any case. That is not so. It is rather a peculiar fact that the Irish Free State operated Imperial Preference much more impartially, as between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, than any others of the member States. In the case of a number of the States which are members of the Commonwealth no preference was conferred on Commonwealth goods, as such, except where special trade agreements involving such preference had been concluded between any one State and some other State. When the question of the extension of general preferential tariff treatment was discussed at the Imperial Conference, it was decided almost unanimously not to adopt a resolution in favour of such general extension. In other words, the States there represented took the line that the only preferential treatment that should be extended was that which they were required to give in consequence of specific commitments entered into in the form of trade treaties. The position now is that we have secured with Canada a treaty which is, roughly speaking, based on the most-favoured-nation clause. It secures for the produce of the Irish Free State in that country the same tariff treatment as is conferred upon the produce of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is true that the industrialists of this country, competing in the Canadian market with the industrialists of Great Britain, possess certain disadvantages, but in the past they have been able to compete fairly successfully there, and there is no reason to anticipate that they will not be able to do so in the future. In fact, as against these disadvantages, there are certain offsetting advantages. The Seanad must consider the extent to which, if at all, this agreement is likely to cut across the policy which might be considered the most suitable policy for this State to adopt. Heretofore, it has been the policy of the Government of the Free State to base these treaties upon the most-favoured-nation clause, but Senators who have been studying the trend of international affairs will have realised that that clause has been going out of use entirely and, in fact, has come to mean very little more than a phrase in a treaty with no practical significance.
The tendency throughout the world is in favour of direct bargaining, treaties as between two countries, and it is not unlikely that the Irish Free State will find itself in the position in which, if it desires to have any trade with a number of these countries, it will have to enter into treaties of that nature. We had to consider that matter in relation to this Canadian Treaty. We came to the conclusion that this is one we could enter into, although it is of the most-favoured-nation clause type, without danger that it would cut across future policy. The volume of trade is, in any event, not very considerable nor is it ever likely to become very considerable because both Canada and the Free State are, of course, to a large extent engaged in the protection of articles of a similar kind. In deciding to recommend the treaty for adoption, the Government are giving expression to their opinion that the operation of this treaty for five years will not, in fact, impede their effort to secure favourable trading conditions as between the Free State and other countries although we would be required by this treaty to confer upon Canadian produce the benefit of the lowest tariff which we give to any other country. Having examined the list of articles which Canada is engaged in exporting and which they could conceivably find a sale for in this market, we think that the treaty will not interfere seriously with our efforts to secure better trading conditions with other countries. The produce which we are likely to buy in quantities from other countries are not those which Canada is in a position to supply, whereas the goods that we have been taking from Canada are goods that during the period of five years we are likely to require. If they were not procured in that country then they would have to be procured elsewhere. I submit the agreement for the approval of the House.
I think it would be difficult to estimate the value of this agreement without adverting to the circumstances under which it was negotiated. To my mind no more momentous expedition ever left the shores of any country than that which went to Ottawa last July since Jason and his Argonauts of the well-known legend set out in search of the Golden Fleece. Every Government service in this country was plundered for talent. Government Departments were left politically and administratively headless that Ottawa might be served. The ship which sailed from Belfast Lough in July had an argosy of Ministerial and administrative talent unsurpassed in the history of the Free State. There were aboard three Ministers, including the Vice-President of the Executive Council, fifteen civil servants together with a sage and dignified member of this House who went, I suppose, as a sort of matronly chaperon. We were told on unimpeachable Press authority that on the voyage neither the Vice-President nor Senator Johnson nor any of the party indulged in leap-frog exercise on deck or joined in the Charleston, or participated in any of the diversions organised for the entertainment of passengers. Instead, they formed committees of their own, and spent their time studying blue books in anticipation of a triumph over the other delegates at Ottawa. We read with sympathy of Mr. O'Kelly's placing a wreath on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier, of his being entertained by the Governor General, of him and his colleagues ridding themselves of their prejudice in regard to headgear and placing orders with an Ottawa trader for silky top-hats to the detriment of our local hatters. When we read these things our hopes were rosy.
We knew that Mr. O'Kelly had poured green, white and yellow ridicule on members of the last Government who attended Imperial Conferences. I recall the caustic speech made by Mr. O'Kelly just twelve months ago, in which he said:—
"We have no pride in being associated with the work of the present Minister for External Affairs. The aim of those responsible for the report as clearly demonstrated by the Minister is to nail and copper-fasten us for ever to the British Empire and its King. We owe no allegiance to the British Empire and we give none. What interests have we in common with Australia, Canada, New Zealand or South Africa? Economically some of them are our greatest competitors in the produce market. It would probably be better for us economically to be disconnected from them, and to be as far apart from them as possible."
Mr. O'Kelly then went on to criticise the message of loyalty which is sent at the beginning of every Imperial Conference. He described it as "hogwash," and said it was an indignity for this ancient nation to be associated with rubbish of the kind. "Is there any greater lie the Minister could tell," said Mr. O'Kelly, "than that we are inspired by feelings of love and affection in this regard—love and affection for what? Is it love and affection for the Black and Tans? On matters of this kind, we, on this side, do not intend to speak with our tongues in our cheeks. We intend to be honest and straight. We have no idea of allowing ourselves to be associated with that work which is the very antithesis of the work we should be doing for Ireland."
Having recalled these caustic words, we, the opponents of Mr. O'Kelly, felt that he would not "pervert" unless the cause of country was to be served handsomely. When we found the caustic Mr. O'Kelly of a year before sending loyal messages to the King we felt that the Jason of Fianna Fáil had secured the Golden Fleece.
The text of the message sent to King George by Mr. O'Kelly and the delegates was in the following terms:—
"Representatives of the Government of the British Commonwealth, assembled in conference at Ottawa, at their first meeting and as their first official act, desire to present their respectful duty to the King and to thank him for the gracious message which has just been read by his Excellency the Governor-General. They join in thanksgiving for your Majesty's continued health and earnestly hope your Majesty and her Majesty the Queen may long be spared to strengthen the feelings of love and devotion shared by all the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
That was the message despatched at the beginning of the Conference. At the end of the Conference, the following address was unanimously voted, all the delegates standing, including, of course, Mr. O'Kelly and his colleagues:—
"The representatives of the Government of the British Commonwealth who have been assembled in conference at Ottawa during the past few weeks desire at the conclusion of the Conference again to present their respectful duty. They pray that Divine Providence may continue to give your Majesty and her Majesty the Queen health and strength to preside over the destinies of all the Nations of the Commonwealth and they renew the assurance of devotion and affection of your peoples."
I hope that Senator Quirke is present so that he may hear what Mr. O'Kelly did, as representing him, at Ottawa. I would suggest to him that he should have these loyal messages recited as the opening and closing prayers at all Fianna Fáil Cumainn in Tipperary. As I have mentioned, Mr. O'Kelly was entertained by the Governor-General of Canada, when, I have no doubt, he and his colleagues—the Minister for Industry and Commerce can contradict me—drank the health of His Majesty the King. They attended at the trooping of the colours and indulged in every form of imperialistic revelry at Ottawa. I know it is denied that they so far forgot their history as to play "bridge." The name might have brought unpleasant recollections. They may have stooped to "poker." But if one is to judge by results the game most favoured by them was "beggar-my-neighbour."
What was the price received by our delegates for their conversion to Imperialism? The agreement recited by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, by which this country is enabled to send in its goods to Canada on the same terms and in competition with goods from Great Britain—that is the sum total of the Ottawa expedition. I might say that Ottawa was in labour and brought forth a very lean and emaciated mouse. To obtain this agreement with a country with which, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, we do very little business, we spent a sum which would have built a terrace of workmen's dwellings, and we had the Vice-President of the Executive Council and his colleagues capering to imperialistic tunes for six weeks.
I notice that the agreement was signed by Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly "on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State." Mr. O'Kelly, the fiery apostle of Republicanism, has written himself down the tamest of Monarchists. And all for what? For an agreement which I venture to say will not produce in increased trade from Canada as much money as was spent in sending out the delegation. To obtain a trade agreement which would be ten thousand times more valuable to this country it would not have been necessary to cut any of these imperialistic capers. We had only to leave alone a perfectly innocuous declaration in the Treaty. But they refused to do this. They insisted on removing the Oath and precipitating a quarrel with England over what they regard themselves as an empty formula. The result is that to-day we have no trade agreement with our nearest and best customer and our products and manufactures going into the British market are heavily taxed.
I cannot understand the mentality which strains at the gnat of the Oath in the Treaty, and swallows without a grimace the humped camels of loyal messages to the King and the double-barrelled Oaths of Allegiance which the Executive Council permitted our Gaelic Governor-General to take the other day. Neither can I understand how any presumably sane body of Irishmen should have deliberately brought about the state of affairs that exists in this country to-day and endeavour to make the people believe that it is in their best interests to discard the market that Denmark, the Argentine and all the countries in the world are doing their best to cultivate and foster. People of other countries who see us sending an expensive delegation across the Atlantic to bring home such a miserable agreement as that which has been read here to-day and at the same time ostentatiously discarding the best market in the world which is at our door must come to the conclusion that politically we are only fit for a children's home.
I have endeavoured to study the report of the Imperial Economic Conference which has been circulated to members of the Oireachtas. I find myself in many respects in a similar position to what I was in yesterday in regard to the Customs (No. 4) Bill: that, while I can make out a great deal of it, I find it extremely difficult to know exactly in what respect we are affected by this agreement taken as a whole. I imagine that there are very few, if any, members of this House who disagree with Senator MacLoughlin in his statement that if we could have had a properly worked out trade agreement with Great Britain it would have been of more value than any other possible agreement. I do not propose to spend the time of the House in labouring what, to my mind, is a perfectly obvious statement which is incontrovertible—one that I think everyone feels is true—that it is a pity no such agreement has been made. The only comment I will make is that I hope some such agreement can still be made and that no time will be lost in an endeavour to make it.
The Minister, in explaining this Canadian agreement, said that in order to understand the value of it, we must have reference to the agreement made between Great Britain and Canada, and that, of course, is quite correct. I think that in order to understand the whole position, we want to have reference to all the agreements that have been made and without reference further to the question of any agreement with Great Britain. What is worrying me in this Canadian agreement is that, with the exception of South Africa, there is apparently no agreement of any kind with any of the other Dominions and I am afraid that in certain respects we may find that this country is being definitely injured as a result of the Conference in Ottawa, apart altogether from the question in relation to Great Britain. The Canadian agreement, to my mind, was in itself perfectly satisfactory and exactly as much as one could have expected or wished for in relation to Canada. It provides that any preference which Canada may give to Great Britain, she will also give to this country. That, in fact, means that any industries here which may possibly in future be able to trade with Canada will be able to trade on equal terms with Great Britain, who, I think, in most cases—there may be some exceptions—is our principal competitor.
I should be very glad if the Minister would tell us when replying as to why a similar simple agreement was not made—assuming that it was not made and that it is not going to be made; if it is going to be made later, my criticism is not applicable — with New Zealand, Australia and other Dominions. I mention these two because, while I do not suppose the volume of trade is very big, there are industries here which do a not negligible trade with these two Dominions. In this connection, I am rather puzzled by the slight difference in wording that occurs in the agreement between the different Dominions and Great Britain. Some of the agreements state definitely that the Dominion in question, say, Australia, will give a preference to British goods, according to certain schedules, over foreign goods. I take it that goods from the Irish Free State, at any rate for the present, are not foreign goods and that, while we may not necessarily get that preference, the agreement of itself does not mean that Australia is going to remove any existing preferences we have and would not, in any sense, be a barrier to our making an agreement with Australia. In the case of New Zealand, however, we find that there is a special preference given to goods of the United Kingdom and it does not clearly say over foreign goods. I am not at all certain, in the strict reading of it, that it means that there will have to be given to the goods of the United Kingdom a preference over all goods. It may be that there is a general understanding that, even though the words "over foreign goods" are not specifically stated, there is still a possibility of our making an agreement later with, say, New Zealand or Australia which would give us, at any rate, the same position as Great Britain.
I have not been able to find out as yet how far this agreement at Ottawa may injure us but I should be glad to know if the Minister is in a position to answer the question I put to the Minister for Finance two or three weeks ago as to our present position in regard to preference in India, Australia, New Zealand, in particular, and the other Dominions, and, also, as to whether we still get a preference in what are known as the Crown Colonies, which, I think, technically include Malta and a number of smaller places. I know that, at any rate, in the case of linen, a trade is being done with these places and there is quite a considerable trade with India—perhaps not considerable taking the country as a whole, but considerable for the one or two firms engaged in the trade— and it would be a very serious thing indeed if the preferences were to be removed. If he is not in a position to make that statement, I would urge him to try and get inquiries made as soon as convenient—I know the difficulties with regard to distance—and make a public statement on the matter, because there is a considerable amount of uneasiness. The Minister will appreciate that Irish manufacturers are extremely reluctant to send goods so far away as India if by any chance the preference was not accorded and there is a danger of the goods being returned or sold without profit.
Another case which has come to my notice in which this Ottawa agreement is definitely injuring an important Irish industry is the case of Irish whiskey. Senator Jameson is unavoidably away but he gave me the facts and asked me to mention them. If you refer to the agreement between the United Kingdom and New Zealand, you will find that part of the agreement, in addition to certain preferences, provides that the sur-tax placed on certain goods by New Zealand is not to be applied so far as United Kingdom goods are concerned. I understand that quite a considerable trade in Irish whiskey has been done in New Zealand and that, as a result of this agreement, the surtax has been removed in relation to the United Kingdom whiskey, but other whiskey has to bear the sur-tax, and there is grave danger of the Irish trade being entirely lost in that case. If that kind of thing is at all likely to be extended as a result of Ottawa, I am afraid that it would totally counteract any possible benefits we may gain from the one agreement with Canada.
It seems to me a matter, apart, as I said before, from the general question of Great Britain, dealt with by Senator MacLoughlin, of the greatest regret that it was not possible to make a similar simple agreement with each of the other larger Dominions, at any rate, to provide that any preferences they give to Britain, they would also give to us. If you read through this agreement, you will see that, in many respects, it would not apply to this country at all, but there are a number of small articles which would be of some benefit to manufacturers and traders here, and, if we are going to extend our trade, it certainly is a handicap if we are going actually to be handicapped in the British Dominions as against Great Britain. There are, of course, questions of sentiment and other things which arise, but, in the one or two trades that I know, it is still easier, or it was, until lately, to do trade with the British Dominions than with foreign countries for various reasons, and it would be a serious thing if, as a result of Ottawa, we are actually to lose this trade. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be able to deal with these specific matters I refer to and give some kind of assurance which will remove the doubts and uneasiness which I know exist.
I support the motion. I have always been a supporter of Empire free trade, and I think this is a move in the right direction. I do not agree with Senator MacLoughlin in his statement that the money expended in sending a delegation to Ottawa was wasted. I think it was all to the good, and we would be much better off if we could send out the whole Fianna Fáil Party and several other people to Ottawa. I think the money would be well spent in that case. Senator MacLoughlin has poked fun at the delegation for wearing top hats and for acting according to the usual forms, but I think that Senator MacLoughlin and the House should applaud our delegation for their correct attitude at Ottawa. It is not, however, with these things that I am concerned. I do not mind how the delegation carried on. What I am concerned with and what the country is concerned with is the result of the Conference. We had great hopes of this Conference. We had been looking forward to it for twelve months, since the previous Imperial Conference.
What are the results? We have got certainly a trade agreement with Canada, but a trade agreement which is of a very negligible character. Canada is an agricultural country like ourselves, and requires very little of the goods we have to export. We certainly import a considerable amount of goods from Canada, but our whole export trade with Canada is only one half of one per cent. of our total export trade and, even if we double that trade, which would be a great achievement, it would still amount to only about £300,000. The main object of the Conference was to make agreements and to get preferences for our exports. The only country in which it would be of any material advantage to this country to have a preference is Great Britain, and there has been no move made to have a trade agreement with Britain. Great Britain is the only member of the British Commonwealth of Nations which requires any of our exports and, even if we could get them into other countries, they would not be worth half as much as they would be worth in Great Britain. That fact was clearly shown the other day in the statement of the Minister for Agriculture in the lower House when, in reply to a question, he stated that in the month of September we exported 161 cattle to Belgium, and that these 161 cattle lost £562. That clearly shows that, even with the present tariff that England has put on our cattle, we would still be as well off in sending them there as in sending them to any other country. Furthermore, Belgium or any other country will only take a very limited quantity of our cattle and agricultural produce.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said in the Dáil:
"The effort of the British Government to force them to accept their view by economic pressure already had defeated itself. From this on they could contemplate a continuous improvement and the necessity for an agreement with Great Britain was daily becoming less urgent. They had already passed the worst."
My experience of the country is the very opposite. I think the country was never in a worse state and I should like to know, and the House, I am sure, would like to know, on what ground the Minister based that statement. I cannot see, unless it is that the situation has been eased by the fact that, in a short time, we will have very little to export, how it can be said that we have passed the worst. On that ground, the situation may be eased but on no other can I see that it has.
The point I wish to make in connection with this agreement is that while we gave most-favoured nation treatment to Canada, by which Canada gets the benefit of the least tariff on any goods coming into this country, Canada has not reciprocated but gives us only whatever preference they give to Britain. There is a considerable trade done, or there was a few years ago, in butter between New Zealand, Australia and Canada and there was a trade agreement made, by which timber was sent from Canada to these countries and a preference given in respect of butter in the Canadian market. Had we got most-favoured nation treatment from Canada, we would have that particular preference for our butter. As we are working on a depreciated currency, as regards Canada, the chance of importing, say, timber from Canada and sending back butter under the same terms as the other Dominions have, or had, by special agreement, we would have had something of value, whereas we have nothing of value except whatever our industrial enterprise as against Britain can get us. That is the specific point I want to make.
I am not going to harass the House on the question of the loss of the British market. We all know what is the loss of the British market, and I admit it is a matter of very great importance. Supposing no agreement is made with Britain and supposing we never pay the £5,000,000 a year, I contend we are going to lose more annually in this country than the £5,000,000. Although we may win and retain the money it will be, in my opinion, in the nature of a Pyrrhic victory, because I calculate that the loss per annum on live stock, taking the various grades from suckling calves to bullocks and heifers, will be a great deal more than £5,000,000. At the very lowest calculation it will be £8,000,000. I am basing that on a calculation of £2 a head. There are at least a million calves reared each year in this country. To-day they are selling at 15/- a head as against £3 before this trouble started. The same applies to every grade of stock from yearlings up to two and three years old. In every branch there is the same depreciation. Even if you succeed in retaining the £5,000,000 now, you are going to lose more than that amount in another way as long as you continue to rear live stock. I hope this matter will be settled, and the sooner it is the better for all of us. We will be all satisfied and we will have a better opportunity of making a living.
Senator MacLoughlin suggests various forms of prayer for the Fianna Fáil Clubs in Tipperary. I would like to remind the Senator that for a considerable time the Fianna Fáil Clubs in Tipperary have finished their meetings invariably with either the "Soldier's Song" or the "Legion of the Rearguard." It was a crime to sing the latter song when the late administration was in power, but since the last election the Fianna Fáil Clubs down there have been singing it in the wide open spaces. If the Fianna Fáil Clubs in Tipperary should ever decide to finish their meetings with prayer, I dare say they will go somewhere else to be supplied with a suitable prayer rather than to Senator MacLoughlin.
They should follow the example of their Ministers.
I do not propose to reply to the Senator's outlandish and uncalled for attacks on Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, nor do I propose to defend the attitude of the delegation in studying blue books, as Senator MacLoughlin puts it. The members of the Executive Council are more accustomed to working, since they took over office, than to playing leap frog, as Senator MacLoughlin suggests. I would like to remind Senator MacLoughlin that we have 3,000 asses less in this country this year than we had last year. I think we could do with an additional one or two less.
A few Ministers less, perhaps.
I am frankly puzzled by the wording employed in what I may call these formal and solemn documents. Generally, one does not pay much attention to a difference in wording in comparable conditions; but in this case there is an inner significance which the Minister will, perhaps, explain to the House. I notice that when we are making an agreement with Canada we are His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State and Canada is described as His Majesty's Government also. I notice when we come to the Union of South Africa we cease to be His Majesty's Government and so does South Africa; we each become merely the Governments of the respective countries. I cannot think that that is accidental. I think there is an inner significance which the Minister might like to explain.
I notice also that when the Government of the Union of South Africa makes an agreement with Great Britain it becomes His Majesty's Government of the Union of South Africa. I think those who look at the matter a little more deeply will be able to read a certain political and national significance into those differences. Perhaps Senator Johnson who, I think we all regret, has become so very silent of late, might enlighten us—give us the benefit of his great experience in these matters.
I join with Senator MacLoughlin in a feeling of humiliation that our representatives should speak with such entirely different voices in and out of office; but, on the other hand, I welcome that change and I hope that it can be continued. Now that our Ministers have made personal contact with the Governments of the Dominions, I hope that they will continue to behave in that same spirit and that the attitude of dignity that it represents will be a headline, not only abroad, but at home.
With regard to the observations of Senator Sir John Keane, I think I would have to ask Mr. Havenga the reason why this change of form has been adopted. He probably knows more about it than the other signatory to the same document, Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly. I considered it rather cheap for Senator MacLoughlin to speak as he did to-day. I could not but ask myself what would have been the tone of his speech had the Ministers of the Free State refused to conform to the usages of Imperial Conferences. Had there been no delegation, I am quite sure Senator MacLoughlin and his colleagues would have been very emphatic as to the immense damage that had been done to the country by not sending a delegation.
Hear, hear!
They decided, as Ministers of the Irish Free State, acting within the terms of the Constitution, to attend the Conference. No doubt the greatest hope they had— I am speaking quite without knowledge of their inner minds, but with some knowledge of human nature—was that they would be able to come to an agreement with Great Britain at that Conference. I wonder whether the chances of coming to such an agreement would have been increased or lessened had those Ministers refused to conform to the usages of previous Conferences? If they had refused in that manner, what would have been the attitude of the critics? I could have understood Senator MacLoughlin's speech coming from, let us say, Miss Mary MacSwiney; but I fail to appreciate the wisdom of Senator MacLoughlin making that kind of criticism of Ministers of State for the action they took in Ottawa.
If an agreement had been arrived at with Great Britain, no doubt even conformity to the usages of such Conferences would have been applauded, but no agreement was arrived at. Whose fault was it? Right from the beginning, very early in the course of the proceedings of that Conference, a declaration was made that the British Government would not enter into an agreement with the Irish Free State, because the Irish Free State had in another matter entirely, as they said, broken an agreement unilaterally. Whatever value there may have been in that argument or statement in July or August of this year, there is no value in it now. That moral argument has been discarded because Great Britain has unilaterally broken its agreement in set terms with the United States.
Is it in order to widen the discussion to that extent— to bring in the American debt?
Cathaoirleach
I think it is outside the scope of the Ottawa agreement.
I am not bringing in the American debt at all; I am not going to discuss it. I am no more discussing the American debt than I am discussing the German debt or German reparations. All I am saying is that on this question of an agreement with Great Britain not having been completed, it is quite germane and appropriate to refer to the position of Britain in regard to other agreements. The reason why an agreement was not entered into and could not have been entered into in Ottawa was because the responsible British Minister said they would not enter into an agreement with a country which had already unilaterally broken another agreement. That moral argument has been discarded and now one may hope that, on equal terms from the British point of view, the two countries can again begin negotiating, each having followed the same course.
Oh, no. Surely that is not true.
They have decided in set terms that the agreement entered into with the United States will no longer be maintained and they have arrived at that decision irrespective of what the United States may do in the matter. One might be tempted to discuss other agreements that might have been entered into by the Irish Free State, but the motion deals with the trade agreement between the Irish Free State and the Dominion of Canada. I am somewhat troubled by the language of Article I and I would like the Minister to give some attention to it because it seems to me to carry with it a great deal more than was intended by either Canada or the Free State.
"Goods, the produce or manufacture of Canada, imported into the Irish Free State, shall not be subject to other or higher duties than those paid on similar goods, the produce or manufacture of any other country."
One could quite understand it if it were confined to higher duties than those paid on similar goods of any other country, but if you read it this way—
"Goods, the produce or manufacture of Canada ... shall not be subject to other ... duties than those paid on similar goods, the produce or manufacture of any other country."
—it would seem to me that unless there is a prior understanding and a formal agreement as to what it means, it will preclude any variation of duties, any differing duties on goods from Germany or Finland, say, unless the duties on Canadian goods. It seems to be confining the duties that may be imposed on goods from any other country to the duties which are imposed on Canadian goods, neither higher nor lower; at least, they must not be lower—they must be identical. I do not think that is intended. I look upon it as a very ambiguous and difficult Article to construe, and I suggest it would be well to confer and have a note issued, before ratification, as to exactly what it means.
I think that the Seanad ought to agree that this agreement be ratified for what it is worth. It may be worth a great deal or it may be worth very little but, quite apart from the trade agreement, I can say that so far as I could observe, the value of the delegation to Ottawa was, and will be, very great indeed if the political and social contacts made and the very good impression created upon the Canadian people of responsibility are any guide. However Ministers when they were in Opposition may have looked upon contacts and delegations of this kind, they will probably realise that it is a good thing, from the point of view of their own experience and the benefit of the country, that there should be frequent contact with statesmen of other countries.
I do not think that Senator Johnson's laboured apology for the delegation to Ottawa will impress anybody. It should, however, be pointed out that he is trying to confuse the issue, as has been done before, by comparing the dispute between the United States and Great Britain, which has reference to a War debt, with the dispute between the Free State and Great Britain, which is of a totally different nature. That attempt by Senator Johnson will not deceive anybody. It was tried before. Considering the very small amount of our trade with Canada, this agreement might be described in a phrase in common use in the country—it is "like a chip in porridge," neither here nor there.
The report of the Conference contains the text of an agreement with South Africa. That agreement has not yet been ratified. I should like to know from the Minister why it has not been ratified and when it is likely to be ratified.
A motion for the ratification of the agreement with South Africa will be introduced in due course. I understand that the South African Parliament will not assemble until early next year. Consequently, ratification, on their side, cannot take place earlier than next year, whereas the Canadian Parliament has already ratified the agreement with the Free State. I do not know whether or not I am expected to climb to the heights of dignity attained by Senator MacLoughlin, and to deal with this agreement with the same degree of relevancy that he did. I am afraid that I must at once disclaim any intention of attempting such a feat. I sat with a pencil and a piece of paper in my hand during the course of the Senator's remarks with the intention of writing down, to aid my memory, any point of importance made by him. The sheet of paper was quite blank when the Senator had finished. I then tried to consider his speech as a whole with a view to discovering the main idea behind it. Up to the present, the only conclusion I have been able to come to is that Senator MacLoughlin was trying, in some way, to demonstrate that the views of the Fianna Fáil Party, or certain members of it, had undergone modification since the change from Opposition to Government. To some extent that is probably correct, but I should like to point out, for the benefit of Senator MacLoughlin and his friends, that the change is not entirely one-sided. Some time ago, I expressed to a colleague of mine the view that we would have to take serious note of the possibility of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party deciding to go one better than Fianna Fáil in relation to a number of matters. Apparently, my anticipations in that respect have been borne out. One can understand the new-found interest of Cumann na nGaedheal in unemployment. One can understand the breaking of their long silence about the state of the unemployed and the vigour with which they are now demanding that action to alleviate these conditions should be taken. That is, I suppose, a natural change with the change in their position. I must admit that I was rather startled myself when the leader of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party tabled a motion for the cancellation of the payment of land annuities. That, I felt, was going a bit far. They were adopting the Fianna Fáil policy, not quite understanding it, with a degree of vigour and whole-heartedness I had not looked for. Now that that Party are advocating the de-rating of agricultural land, I think they have definitely swallowed the anchor altogether. Senator MacLoughlin quotes with relish a speech made by the present Vice-President in relation to the usual declaration——
I certainly did not quote it with relish at all.
I rather gathered that Senator MacLoughlin was expressing the view——
It was most distasteful to me. It was the Canadian declaration I approved of.
I must say that I got from Senator MacLoughlin's speech the opinion that he rather disapproved of the representatives of this State associating themselves with these declarations.
Not at all. I suggested that the declarations they subscribed to should be read at the opening and closing of meetings of Fianna Fáil clubs. That did not show disapproval.
There is quite a good suggestion in that.
I hope it will be carried out.
Those who have been quite a long time trying to delude the people of this country as to the status achieved by the Treaty and the status obtained as a result of the progress made since the Treaty will, perhaps, bear in mind the advisability of bringing before the people quite frequently the messages the Senator refers to, for the purpose of letting them know exactly what that status is. The fact is that messages of that kind have always been sent on behalf of conferences of States of the British Commonwealth, and if the present Government is taking action as a Government of a State in the Commonwealth, it cannot, obviously, dissociate itself from this practice, and has no intention of doing so.
Neither could Mr. McGilligan when he went over to the Imperial Conference.
If circumstances should necessitate—and it is quite likely that in the very near future circumstances will not merely necessitate but justify— the dissociation of the Free State from the British Commonwealth, the necessity—be it painful or otherwise— for these messages will have been removed.
The Free State's membership of the British Commonwealth is not founded on any other basis than the basis of expediency. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have ties with Great Britain which do not operate here. They have common racial origin, common language, common traditions, common culture and, apart altogether from economic considerations, the association existing between these countries and Great Britain will, no doubt, always be close and friendly. The only justification for the continuation of the association of the Free State with the British Commonwealth is that substantial benefits are conferred upon our people by that association. If, as at present, no such benefits are, in fact, experienced, then the necessity for maintaining the association is removed. We have not decided to take action to remove it. That is a matter for decision not by the Executive Council or by the present Dáil or Seanad but by the people. But I am quite certain that the people will say that unless there is in the future a prospect of substantial advantage— substantial economic advantage—from the continuation of the association, the sooner we terminate it the better.
The view expressed by Senator MacLoughlin, that by ignoring the plainly-expressed wish of the people and retaining in the Constitution the declaration described as an oath; that by surrendering what we believe to be our just and provable rights and the moneys formerly paid to Great Britain we could secure certain trade advantages from Great Britain, is typical of Cumann na nGaedheal arguments. It is, no doubt, true that by surrendering our rights we would be able to get an amelioration of the present position. But we do not propose to try. If our trade with Great Britain is of any value to Great Britain, Great Britain will, presumably, try to keep it. Nobody needs to have it demonstrated that trade must always be on the basis of reciprocity. If the British people are not prepared to buy the produce of this country, then we cannot buy the produce of their country. It is not a matter of willingness one way or the other. The only way we can pay for the goods we import is by exporting our own produce in return. If it becomes impracticable for us to export our produce to Great Britain, then we shall have to cease importing produce from Great Britain.
The possibility of finding an alternative market for our produce is, of course, engaging the attention of the Executive Council. As I said in the Dáil, we shall soon come to the point when we shall have to decide whether or not to enter into definite agreements operating for a fixed term of years with certain other States by which, in return for concessions from them, we will undertake to give them advantages in this market in respect of goods the supply of which we formerly got from Great Britain. In that connection I should like to correct some misunderstandings. Senator Counihan said that we lost £500 in exporting cattle to Belgium in September. Why did he stop there? That is only half the story. There was no export of cattle to Belgium before September. In that month, the Department of Agriculture started to ship them there. In the first month, they, undoubtedly, lost £500. In the second month, they made a profit of £12. That is not very much, but a profit was made without any bounty being paid on the cattle. In the third month, the trade became so attractive that private interests came in, and cattle are being still exported there by private individuals who are making a substantial profit out of them.
What sort of cattle?
Irish cattle.
What class of cattle?
Irish cattle are being sold at a profit there.
In the first two months that we exported cattle to Belgium, we exported good cattle. We lost £562 or about £3 10s. per head. In the next venture, we exported some old cows. On a trade of what is called "screw bullocks," we made a profit of £12 10s. Neither Belgium nor France nor any other part of the Continent will pay for anything but canned beef.
Cathaoirleach
The debate has gone very far from the motion. I am sure that the Minister would prefer to keep more closely to the terms of the motion.
One other point I just want to make in that connection, and that is that while it is undoubtedly correct that it is not possible for us to get in any other country the market for the cattle that we had heretofore in Great Britain, there are possibilities of opening up a trade with other countries that have never hitherto been explored, opportunities that are only now being explored and the potentialities of which are only now realised. The fact that these alternative avenues are there and that they are being opened will be a decided advantage to this country. In connection with the situation between ourselves and Great Britain at the Ottawa Conference, I should like to say that the announcement of the British Government to impose certain duties on Saorstát produce was made after the delegation had left this country.
That delegation was quite prepared to conclude a basis of treaty between the two countries if the conditions for such a treaty were present, but it was while the ship was on the Atlantic that the delegation heard the first news of the action that had been taken by the British Government in imposing these duties on our produce. I should like to point out here that that action was entirely unprecedented. There is no historical example of any country utilising the tariff weapon in a dispute with another country. The British created a precedent in imposing that tariff. In doing so, they introduced into the British Commonwealth and into the practice of the British Government a new factor and a factor which is going to have considerable reactions upon the relations between Great Britain and ourselves in the future and, indeed, upon the whole future of the British Commonwealth and the various nations in Europe. It was a big step to take and it was taken without due consideration. It is being maintained out of a feeling or out of a false sense of what is strength and firmness. The effects of it are as serious for Great Britain as for us. These facts should be borne in mind. I know that certain Senators, certain members of the public and certain members of the other House like to whine occasionally. That is so. We cannot stop it. We all know the story of the schoolboy who in return for a bar of chocolate or a marble is prepared to take the bandage off his sore finger. People like to show their sores, particularly when there is a certain temptation in doing it.
Are there sores, then? I thought the Minister denied there were any.
I should like the people to bear in mind that whining and showing their sores is not likely to help this or any other country. We are told now that there is good reason for the whining. We are told that owing to the loss of the unexampled prosperity of last year there is good reason for whining. When we look back at the halcyon days of 1931, when everybody was working, when all industries were going ahead full speed, when everybody was working, when all industries were going ahead full speed, when the farmers were so prosperous that they were spending money on horse racing, dog racing and other entertainments and nobody had any grievances, there surely is good reason for whining! That was the position and the whole country was so delighted with it and the whole country was so carried away with it that when they got an opportunity in February last they put the Government then in office into opposition.
Of course there are matters here which are capable of improvement, and even when we have had ten years of Fianna Fáil Government there will still be trouble in the country and things will have to be rectified. We do not expect to be able to reach the goal of perfection no matter how long we will be in office. Some people put our term of office at 50 years. But I want the people to consider how the conditions existing here now are due to causes much more serious than the present dispute. It is not possible to repair in six months the damage done in 100 years by the British Government. We know that Fianna Fáil has a fairly high opinion of itself, but the opinion we have of ourselves never quite reached the height that some members of the Opposition appear to have of us. They expected more in a few months from us than they did in ten years themselves. We have done much to repair the damage done in the past but there is still a long distance to be travelled. If the members of the various sections and the various classes in the country, instead of stopping upon the roadside for a whine would put a hand to the job and help to get the country going, they would be doing a lot more useful work than they are doing at present.
I should like now to deal with some of the points that arise, and with the specific relations of this with other treaties. On the significance to be attached to the date of the treaty with Canada and South Africa I leave Senator Sir John Keane to exercise his imagination. We did not succeed in definitely concluding agreements with New Zealand, Australia and India, because of certain difficulties that existed, the principal of which was that the delegation from this country at Ottawa had no specific instructions from their Government as to the form of the treaty which might be concluded between these countries and the Irish Free State. It will be noticed that apart from the agreements with the United Kingdom there have been inter-Commonwealth agreements made. With each of these countries certain documents were exchanged. These documents were examined. Certain documents were passed in the case of Australia and New Zealand. Letters were exchanged in which each side announced its intention to maintain the status quo until a trade agreement was concluded. Negotiations with the Government of this country are still passing in the case of India, and an agreed memorandum concerning the steps to be taken was prepared and sent to India. In the case of India also steps for the conclusion of an agreement are being made. In that connection, I should like to say that a greater length of time has passed since the exchange of these documents and the conclusion of the agreements than I had anticipated.
We are at present giving each of these countries the full benefit of our Commonwealth rate in respect of all classes of goods. At some time in the near future it will be necessary for us to change all our Finance Acts and to give only to each country the specific preferences which we have agreed to give under our treaties. Consequently, the continuation of the preferential rates of duty which are at present being given to Australia, New Zealand, India and other countries will not operate unless agreements requiring us to give these rates are concluded.
Reference was made to the position with regard to the colonies. We have not been notified of any alteration in the agreements of the Free State with any of the colonies with one or two minor exceptions where agreements of a specific character between certain colonies and dominions were entered into. As far as we have been informed it is the policy of the Colonial Office in London that any tariff preferences that are to be given are given generally to all members of the Commonwealth and not to any individual member. What I have said concerning the negotiations and agreements with New Zealand more or less covers the points concerning the export of whiskey to that country. It may be, and I am accepting it as accurate, that there is more or less a considerable export of Irish whiskey to New Zealand which is not shown in the trade returns. I am presuming that the trade returns cannot be relied upon, because Irish whiskey sent to New Zealand may appear on our returns as whiskey sent to Great Britain and in the British returns as whiskey exported to New Zealand. We had a certain discussion in that connection with the New Zealand delegation at the Ottawa Conference. It is hoped to conclude an agreement with that country in respect of all classes of goods with which we are concerned.
As regards the sale of butter in Canada, butter is a seasonal production in this country. We produce butter for export at the same time as the Canadians. The period of the year when they want butter is the period when we have no butter to give them, and consequently there is no special advantage to be secured for us in respect of exports of butter to Canada. I do not think Senator Johnson need be concerned about the wording of Article I. It is the phraseology used in all these treaties, and the Senator will note that that applies also to Article II.
Article II has a different effect.
The same applies in various other cases. The significance, I take it, is that in the event of the lowest duty applying to produce of some country other than Canada imported into this country being the ad valorem duty, then that ad valorem duty to the same amount would apply in cases of the importation of goods under a flat rate duty.
It is not only the rates of duty but the other conditions.
In any case I can assure the Senator that we do not propose to impose duty upon any goods of that kind. Only a few of them, as the Senator will have noticed, had any bearing upon the motion before the Seanad or any bearing on the treaty with which the motion is concerned. I gather that the treaty is one that can be adopted by the Seanad. That is the view I take. Other matters referred to by various Senators can be discussed on another day.
Question put and agreed to.