740 FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1950, VOLUME rt

One point on which the Delegation may want to make further
investigation is whether the intensification has been effected equitably
as among hard-currency countries. There should be no discrimination
among hard-currency countries in the procurement of goods which all
of the countries are able to supply. Where an essential product is
available in one hard-currency country and not in others there would
appear to be grounds for differences in overall proportionate
reduction in imports from different hard-currency countries.

_ The Department of Commerce has prepared a table showing, by
main commodity groups, 1948 actual imports from United States,
Canada and the dollar area compared with the original and final 1949-
50 import programs. A second table shows the proportion of total im-
ports supplied by the United States and Canada in 1987, which was
chosen as a representative prewar year, and in 1948. Both tables are
in Annex B.* The first table shows that, in the final 1949-50 program
as compared with the original program for the same year, the United
States bears on an overall basis relatively less reduction than Canada,
namely a reduction of 17 percent on purchases from the United States
as compared with a reduction of 21 percent on purchases from Canada.
Other dollar areas appear to take very little cut, chiefly because sugar
purchase figures in the two programs are not comparable, the final
program including a large amount of sugar to be used in manufactures
for reexport. If the sugar figures are made comparable, the percentage |
cut on other western hemisphere purchases is at least as sharp as that
on Canadian purchases. A sizeable amount of dollar purchases is to be
bought wherever in the dollar area the best price can be obtained, but
even if all of this amount were finally purchased outside the United
States it is not likely that any area would fare better than the United
States in overall percentage of reduction of purchases.

Should the Canadians take exception to this situation, claiming that
the British have discriminated against them, the United States Dele-
gation may wish to point out that the overall differential as between
Canada and the United States does not necessarily indicate discrimina-

tion among dollar sources of supply, since discrimination must be
_ evaluated not in terms of total purchases subject to cut but in terms of
individual commodities. As a second table in Annex B shows, between
1937 and 1948 Canada gained on an overall basis as a supplier to United
Kingdom relative to the United States. Also Canada fared better than
the United States as a supplier of nearly all agricultural commodities,

8 Tables. not printed. Annex B is printed only in part, following. In toto, it
consists of 15 legal-size pages of factual information and tables on the restrictive
systems in effect in 1950 in the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Aus-
tralia, New Zealand, and Southern Rhodesia.