If my hon. friend has anything to say, there is a parliamentary way of saying it rather than standing on his feet trying to interrupt a member who is speaking. My hon. friend says that the whole question should be argued on the basis of what is the right of the consumer. Everyone who breathes is a consumer, but everyone is not a producer. It happens in this case that we are standing for the rights of a body of producers in this country, and if there is a body of producers that deserve consideration more than any other body of producers, it is the dairy farmers. My hon. friend himself in his speech a few days ago taunted the dairy men of this country. He said: "Do you want to go and carry a milk pail?" Then he went on to say how the farmers preferred to grow wheat, indicating that there was a much better future for them in growing wheat than in carrying a milk pail. But the dairy industiy and those engaged in it are entitled to every atom of respect that we can extend to them, for one reason if for no other, and that is that they rvork every day of the year. There is no Sunday off; there is no one day or half day *off; they work morning and night, Sundays .and week days. It is a most exacting industry. As I said a moment ago, it is essentially a producers' industry and as such it is entitled to the consideration of the house and not the taunts of my hon. friend.
The minister a moment ago asked the question: What right have wre to dictate where the farmers shall sell their milk? Nobody is suggesting that the farmer shall sell his milk here or there. Nobody is interfering with him. We are responding to an appeal and a very earnest one made from every province in the Dominion by the dairymen of Canada. There is not a province that has not poured 2419-33
forth time and time again an appeal to parliament to remedy this condition, and we are responding to that appeal.
We are not seeking to dislocate trade with Australia and New Zealand. We welcome it; we want to see it expand, and if time would permit I would like to show the minister-I may do so at some other time-how we can expand that trade. When we amended the treaty that was first brought back from Canada, we did more to injure Australia's chances for trading with Canada than in any other way. Had the original draft, that was presented to the Prime Minister and his government by his then Minister of Trade and Commerce, who himself went to Australia for the purpose of securing that treaty, and that was approved by Australia-had that been the draft that was made finally the agreement or the treaty, Australia would have had more access to our markets on other lines of goods than she has to-day. I remember in the brief time in 1926 when I was Minister of Customs, the representative of Australia came to Canada to discuss the situation with the government and it happended that he discussed it with me. I have forgotten his name; I think it was Mr. Thomas. This gentleman was at first very earnest about the six per cent dumping duty, but he went on to point out that if we would give Australia some opportunity of getting into our markets, they could ship dried fruits to Canada. I pointed out to him that one of his chief handicaps was the splendid system which California had of packaging and merchandising her fruit, the result of years of study. He agreed with me that that was so, but he said: "If we had just a little more preference in your market so that we might be encouraged as to the future, our producers and packers would be stimulated to put up a better package and to study the market more thoroughly." In that one branch of activity alone I believe our trade with Australia could be immensely expanded. I belive we could buy from that sister dominion a very much larger amount of her produce than we do at the present time.
Then there is the question of hardwoods. I think it was last year there was before Mr. Moore a proposal to restrict the importation of certain hardwoods that were coming in too freely from the United States. There again Australia could serve us. Why not divert some of our hardwood purchases to Australia? Why not study the Australian treaty from the standpoint of increasing the purchases of goods that we require that will displace goods from the United States or other countries not
Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
within the empire? There is where we can do some good for the promotion of trade between the two countries, but instead of that the government talks about hitting a blow. The Minister of Finance said that our attitude was hitting a blow at New Zealand, but the present government about the month of February, 1926, struck a blow straight in the face of Australia. I know, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows, that Australia has ever since resented the action of the government, called it a piece of chicanery and duplicity to enter into a contract with them and then, within six months, to impose a dumping duty against their products. The treaty should never have been passed in the form in which it was, and that was the stand we took at that time. We pointed out to the government what the results would be and the results have been exactly what we pointed out. It is only right and fair to the dairymen of Canada that the government should admit the injury that has been done to them and should seek in a friendly way to remedy it.
We talk very readily about the increase in our sales of lumber and fish. The minister knows perfectly well that British Columbia and the maritime provinces are exceedingly anxious to stimulate that trade. There is no doubt about that; but is it fair; is it good debating; is it good statesmanship for a government to hold up before one section of the country a possible infringement of their exports just to cover up their dereliction of duty to the ruination of another industry?
The minister knows there is no other man in the house who would be more seriously affected politically than I or my colleagues from Vancouver, by anything that would injure trade with Australia. The great city of Vancouver is most earnestly in favour of and anxious for the treaty and for the extension of trade with Australia, but I would not under any circumstances justify the injury done to the great dairy industry of the countiy no matter what the result might be. The whole question narrows itself down to this: Here is a treaty. There have been
certain given results from that treaty. Some of those results have been beneficial to Canada-admitted; but in one or two respects the treaty has been decidedly injurious to Canada, indeed has threatened the very existence of many engaged in the industry affected. It is not enough for the minister to say: Oh, there has been expansion here and there in the dairy industry. I imagine that around certain centres where ice cream is being consumed in very large quantities some of the
dairy interests may be benefiting from that business, but that is not the way to look at this question. We know from personal observation and have the testimony of many hon. members of this house that in this great province of Ontario, yes, indeed, in my own province, in certain sections, and in other parts of the country, farm after farm is being abandoned or is being offered for sale for the price of the buildings on the farm. That is not a condition that anyone can justify. It is a condition that challenges the attention of parliament. If the existence in business of all these people in Ontario, in the maritime provinces, in Quebec and in other parts of the country is threatened by any action on the part of this government, then parliament is bound to pause in its proceedings and give first consideration to that very thing. And that is the condition. I do not know what the number is, but I venture to say that in this province of Ontario particularly, and the same is true in lesser degree perhaps of the other provinces, literally hundreds of the best type of citizens we have are being driven into bankruptcy and into the corner as a direct result of the unfair competition coming through this treaty. These are the things that we tell the government must be considered, and that is why we have moved, as we have, that this order in council should be forthwith cancelled.
Let me make it abundantly clear-let me, shall I say, repudiate what the minister has sought to present in his argument-that our proposal is not aimed at the Australian treaty as a whole, but at one particular part of that treaty as applied to New Zealand butter. That is what we are driving at, and it is to that we direct the attention of this house. That is what we are going to vote on in a few moments. I shall not detain the house further at this hour other than to appeal again to the Prime Minister to forget this chicanery, this evasion, this seeking to becloud the issue, and face what is the demand, and the reasonable demand, of a great body of the citizens of Canada.
Topic: SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
is only a few hours ago, Mr. Speaker, that I decided to enter into this debate. Now I feel particularly privileged to follow the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). We on this side of the house read a short time ago an anmounoemenit to the effect that he was going to retire from public life. We also read his political obituary which was printed in the newspapers throughout the country, and those obituaries flattered him very much. I am happy to say that apparently
Australian Treaty-Mr. Hepburn
he has reconsidered his decision and has returned to this house. We hope that he may have the privilege of sitting on that side for many years to come.
I want to speak a word on this subject from the viewpoint of the dairy fanner, because I own and operate a dairy farm just south of the city of St. Thomas. I have also operated a dairy factory, and1 I was for several years head of an organization which supplied Windsor with milk. It is from the producers' viewpoint that I wish to speak.
From the other side of the house we have heard from a brilliant lawyer, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and from the other gentleman to whom I just referred, the skilled accountant from Vancouver. After carefully listening to their speeches I am firmly convinced that they are much more familiar with golf sticks than with milk stools. I see in their argument the same old Tory attack on the policy of low tariff. At this particular time they are bending every effort in order to bring the farmers into the camp of high protection. On this question they feel that the government perhaps is more or less vulnerable. I welcome a debate of this kind because I think that when the matter has been properly discussed the opposition members will see that in dissociating the butter question from the dairy industry as a whole they are presenting to this house arguments which are in themselves very misleading. Of course, coupled with their economic argument, -we have the same old blue ruin cry, so charasteristic of our friends across the way. We recall in 1925 similar propaganda on their part. In 1926 they mixed the campaign up a little and threw in a little scandal in order to wade up the gutter to the throne if possible. I think that they have overdone this blue ruin talk.
Last summer in my constituency I had the privilege and pleasure, along with the hon. member who sits on this side of the house from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), of going to Port Stanley and hearing the address of the brilliant leader of the opposition at that great Tory picnic. Amongst other things he indulged, of course, in this blue ruin talk with respect to the dairy industry. I shall never forget him on that occasion. Words literally flowed from his lips. If any word hesitated, it was swept to destruction by the thousands that surged in its wake as the hon. gentleman was carried along on the flood tide of his verbosity. His verbal machine gun killed the lowly mosquito by the thousands. The charges that he made with respect to the sins of omission and commission of this government filled many pages of the Conservative 2419-33J
papers which reported his meeting. [ shall never forget him as he waxed enthusiastic. He became even dramatic. He indulged in mild gesticulations and wound up with an appeal which should have aroused sympathy in every breast. I can picture him as he raised his eyes skyward and said, "Ladies and gentlemen, men and women of Elgin counity, I ask you to do something at once to save our dairy industry from total destruction. We are becoming a dependent nation." Probably it was because he was gazing skyward that he did not notice the ripple of laughter that came from the four or five hundred people who had gathered to listen to him. I want to emphasize that point because I think it is dangerous to dissociate the butter question from the dairy industry as a whole. Butter is a slippery subject, and even a parliamentary lawyer may slip now and again on this question. While the hon. leader of the opposition was depicting the terrible condition existing in the dairy industry, at that time in the town of Aylmer, a few miles away, the great Carnation milk plant was preparing to ship, not a carload, but a whole trainload of milk to the Canadian west. It made a gala day for Elgin; it was something that had never been done before in the county. We had the movies there, and speeches, and among the events that took place was the presenting to some of the members of parliament present of a gallon can of condensed milk each.
Topic: SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
If the hon. gemtlemai would take a little of that milk he would have sufficient gusto to speak loud enough that we all could hear him. Even the Conservative paper suggested that a can of that milk should be sent to the leader of the opposition, with the compliments of the dairy industry of the county of Elgin. I did not take literally the promise made by the hon. leader of the opposition when he accepted the nomination in Winnipeg that he was going to devote his services and his fortune to the Conservative party. I felt that he still had enough means loft to buy the necessities of life, and so I donated the can of milk that I received to a worthier cause, to the children's shelter in the city of St. Thomas.
Australian Treaty-Mr. Hepburn
I have mentioned that matter, Mr. Speaker, to show that this talk about the dairy industry 4s largely political. To emphasize that further, I want to tell the hon. leader of the opposition that a very prominent farmer in the county of Elgin who listened to him on that day wrote to the press the following day and in describing the speakers on that occasion mentioned the fact that the Elgin provincial member spoke like a statesman, but the hon. leader of the Conservative party talked more like a politician. So that was the effect of the hon. leader's crusade in Elgin county, trying to tell the people there that the dairy industry was being ruined, when actually it was progressing at a rate never before heard of in that particular part of Ontario.
I am not going to deal with the statements made by the brilliant lawyer and prominent accountant across the way, but I desire to refer to the speeches made by my good friend from Haldimand (Mr. Senn), the mover of the amendment, who in some respects is a neighbour of mine, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rowe) who seconded the amendment. They both described themselves as farmers and vitally interested in the welfare of the farmers of this county. I am afraid that they have been carried away by the brilliant arguments put forward by their leader, and they are sadly mistaken with respect to this industry as a whole. They have been painting a terrible picture of the conditions in the dairy industry, and to relieve the gloom I wish to put on Hansard figures of the steady progress made in dairy production as a whole. These are the figures:
Year Total production
That does not look to me as though the the industry is in a state of stagnation. But something even more important than that should be taken into consideration-the price that our farmers are getting for their dairy products. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) has made mention of the editorial appearing in the Milk Producer to the effect that so far as the editor knows no dairy producers in the world are getting as much for their products as our Canadian dairymen. That is a very significant statement, and if it is true I think all the talk from across the floor should more or less peter out into thin air, being simply political propaganda.
Let us analyze world prices so far as they apply to dairy products. We know the price
of butter is lower in the United States than it is in Canada. All my hon. friends have to do if they want to verify that for themselves is to go to the library and look up the comparative prices of butter as between Toronto and Chicago or Montreal and New York. Then if they will go further and look up the dairy reports from London, England, they will find that Canadian cheese is bringing about 11 shillings per hundredweight more than New Zealand cheese. So our dairymen are selling their butter at higher prices on the home market than obtain elsewhere, and for their superior cheese product, recognized as such throughout the world, they are receiving in the export market a higher price than their competitors. Here is something even more significant. I have dealt with the major dairy products, butter and cheese. I have a telegram before me from the manager of probably the biggest milk factory in southern Ontario; it is an international concern. I asked him to advise me by telegram with respect to the prices paid in their Canadian plants and in their American plants. He wired back that at the present time the Canadian plants are paying from 15 to 25 cents per hundredweight more than they are paying at their United States factories, and that during the past winter they have paid as high as 40 cents per hundredweight more in Canada than in the United States. So taking all those factors into consideration, I do not think our daily industry is suffering in the way our friends would have us believe.
I want to make reference to the total production of our dairy farmers. The figures are already on Hansard, but for the sake of argument I want to quote them again. In 1925 our total production was $284,000,000; in 1928 it was $297,000,000. At the same time while production in terms of value was increasing, our exports were decreasing. There is only one conclusion that any intelligent man can draw from those figures, and that is that we are consuming more of our produce at home than we ever did before. I do not care how brilliant or misleading an argument may be, if we are producing more and exporting less, then of necessity we must be consuming more of that produce at home.
Let us see what we are doing in that respect. Statistics show us that Canadians are the greatest consumers of butter in the world-29'31 pounds per capita; we have increased our cheese consumption to 3-54 pounds per capita, and largely by reason of the educational campaign that has been carried on for greater milk consumption we have increased our per capita milk consumption from 240 pounds to 470 pounds. Those facts are
Australian Treaty-Mr. Hepburn
significant. We are building up our home market, which is just what our Conservative friends have always asked for. We have accelerated, so to speak, this consumption by the tremendous American tourist traffic throughout the Dominion. I do not think any mention has been made of that important factor. Those of us from southern Ontario probably are more in touch with that traffic than are members from other parts of Canada. We do know that practically every other car on the road in southern Ontario during four or five months of the summer is an American car, and its occupants consume our dairy produce. I know of no way of accurately arriving at any figures which would indicate the amount of this food consumption. But we all know our American friends are strong coffee drinkers-I would not confine their drinking altogether to coffee; but they do drink coffee-and I think the rapid increase in our coffee imports would be indicative of the amount of food consumed by these tourists while in the Dominion. I find that between 1926 and 1928 our imports of coffee increased by over 25 per cent. Statisticians tell us that the American tourists spend in Canada $300,000,000 per year. On the basis of our coffee imports I think we may safely say that $75,000,000 of food products are consumed in Canada annually by American tourists, which products otherwise would go into the export trade. So when we are taking into consideration the misleading propaganda, if I may call it so, from across the floor, mention should be made at least of the tremendous consumption of Canadian produce in Canada by our American friends. I know our hon. friends across the way have no objection to American tourists coming over here and buying our food products and consuming them here. In my home town of St. Thomas the proprietor of a little restaurant told me recently that in one day last summer he fed 267 American tourists. I do not know how much that consumption will increase next year, but it will be considerably increased, because the tunnel at Windsor is being completed and the bridge is already in operation. We look for a thirty-three per cent increase in the American tourist trade next summer, and in view of that if we have even a further falling off of our dairy exports I think we can attribute it to some extent to the increased American tourist trade.
Now, as one who operates a large farm, I feel it should be my privilege to sell my produce in any market I choose. The last thing I should like to do to the hon. leader of the opposition would be to tell him that he could no longer act as a corporation lawyer but must go out and handle rural cases, which probably would not yield him
such a nice income as his corporation practice. I want to sell in any market that suits me, and the market in which we are selling in southern Ontario is a highly profitable market. I have confirmation of this in a telegram over the signature of J. P. Coyle, general manager of the Carnation Milk Company, who himself enjoys the confidence of all the farmers of Elgin county. He tells me that he has paid $2 per hundredweight for whole milk in the past five months, as an average price. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, skilled accountant as he is, could follow the analysis of this thing, but in order to make it plain I might tell him that on this basis he is paying 57 cents per pound in terms of butter fat. Figuring that in terms of butter it means that we are getting 71 cents per pound, and have been for the past five months. From a national standpoint, if we farmers of Elgin can sell our produce for 71 cents a pound, buy our requirements for around 40 cents, and make a net profit of 31 cents-again from a national standpoint-I think that is pretty good business for the country. A year ago, speaking on the budget, I made mention of that particular fact, and I said that we were making in that year, as near as I could figure, about three and a half million dollars on that particular transaction. Just a few days ago I had the privilege of reading an address by J. P. Singleton, chief of the division of dairy markets, Ottawa. Now, Mr. Singleton is not a politician. He has no axe to grind. His chief concern is to direct properly the dairymen of this country. I believe he is a man of very high standing, a man in whom we have a great deal of confidence. He said this:
During the year ending November, 1929, the butter fat in various products, states Mr. Singleton, had an average value of 55.07 cents per pound as compared with an average value of 44.13 cents per pound fat in the various products imported, a difference of 10.94 cents per pound fat. From these figures Mr. Singleton estimates that the country is richer by $2,738,000 by exporting dairy products as we did and by importing to supply part of our home requirements.
Is it not a peculiar thing, that with that great array of talent which we have along the front benches of the Conservative party, including the brilliant lawyer from South Wellington, and the skilled accountant from Vancouver Centre, who has certainly a nose for investigating, not one of them has yet dropped on to the fact that we are making money on the deal.
I want to make further mention of the speech of my hon. friend from Dufferin-Sim-coe (Mr. Roiwe). He is possessed of what I might call a vivid imagination, and no doubt
Australian Treaty-Mr. Hepburn
he will go a long way in public life. His suggestion is that we increase our production of butter by fifty million pounds, for domestic consumption and then another twenty-five million, in order that we might go on the export market. He knows very wall indeed, if he knows anything about trade questions, that if we are going back on the export basis we will have to take five cents a pound less for butter, and yet he advocates this as a farmer in the interests of the farmer. Is that what he realty wants? Surety not. I think he has the interests of the farmer more at heart than that. He must realize that by selling in a domestic market we are selling in the highest priced market in the world. He says that the farmer cannot make money out of present prices, and he advocates a system which will bring the fanner lower prices. In order to get this production he is going to create a hierd of cows, 284,000 in number. These cows are going to be parties of the first part. He is then going to create
160.000 lifters of bacon hogs, 10 hogs to a litter. These hogs are to total 1,600,000 in number and are to be parties of the second part. They a.re to feed on the skim milk of these fictitious cows. Imagine it! He suggests carrying the hogs along for six months of their lives on skimmed milk, something that is absolutely ridiculous, as any hog producer in this country knows. He might produce some hogs o.f the southern razonbaek type, such as they sell in Florida, but he certainly will not produce bacon hogs. Then he is going to solve the wheat question. In the last six months in the lives of these hogs they are going to eat wheat. Then the
1.600.000 hogs are to be dumped on the markets in order that hog prices might be smashed completely. But he goes beyond that, and he carries this thing right cn to its final analysis. He says that the value of the fertilizer from these fictitious cows will amount to $6,400,000 a year, and the fertilizer' from the hogs wil amount to another $6,000,000. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about the county of Dufferin, but I do know that in Elgin county we never as yet have had to enrich our fields with fertilizer from unborn hogs and cows. He makes a great .case in point over .the loss of our cow population. I am not a bit alarmed about that. While operating a dairy factory I knew of one producer with seven cows who brought in over five hundred pounds of milk, whereas another producer with twenty-five cows brought in less than five hundred pounds of milk. In view of that fact, it was a mighty good thing that we inaugurated a campaign
of cow-testing in order that the brindled cows with the crumpled horns could be sent to the stock yards, and their ringside seats taken by highly producing pure breds. Improved production is the object we are trying to attain now. The horn, member knows too that the T.B. test meant that thousands of cows and dairy heifers have been slaughtered in the Toronto stock yard's, and I do not think he objects to that. And then there is the sending of our cows to the American republic to the south. Those cows did not go there with the intention of having their calves bom American citizens. They went there because of certain conditions created by a Tory administration in the United States. This forms a very interesting sidelight on the question, and I think that the Conservative party might see the light of day if they would look across the line and follow the Bennett policy as it is thoroughly applied over there with respect to the dairy industry. They put a twelve-cent tariff on butter; the farmers over there, feeling themselves secure behind the tariff, came to Canada to buy cows at any price, and yet we are blamed for selling our cows under such conditions. However, we did sell them; we are business men down there. In that way they increased their production, but when they reached the saturation point they found the tariff was no good to them, and in January this year the price of butter in the United States fell to 31 cents a pound. What do my friends think of that? This same Tory administration which had led the farmers up a blind alley were thoroughly alarmed, so they undertook to establish a farm loan fund in order to try to bolster up the price of butter, and they loaned in some instances three million dollars to various concerns to hold butter off the market. But that did not do any good, and to-day the farmers over there are sadder but wiser. But that is the unfortunate part of it. I have some regard for my farmer friends, and I try to represent them honestly if I can, and I say that it was rather unfortunate that the Tory administration in the United States should for their political gain trick the farmers in this way, by leading them up a blind alley. They should hang their heads in shame, the same as my friends opposite should do.
There is the policy advocated by our Conservative friends, thoroughly complete. I want to appeal to the sympathy of our hon. friends across the way as their leader did at Port Stanley when he held his arms heavenward and appealed to the powers that be to annihilate this terrible Liberal administration which was bringing disaster to the dairying industry of Canada. Think of the men who
Export of Liquor
have been disillusioned by this Tory propaganda, who came over to Canada, paid heavily for cows, and are now in debt; who perhaps have their places mortgaged, and who to-day receive a lower price for their butter than the established world price. It is shameful on the part of any political party to do such a thing to an unsuspecting rural population.
I am going to ask this government to stand pat on their tariff policy, despite the protectionist propaganda that is coming through all the papers of this country. Speaking of my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) I think I called him a doubting Thomas a year or so ago. He does not know whether he is for the treaty or against it, but if he gets in office he is going to create a very fine situation. He states that he is quite willing to make treaties with Australia or with New Zealand. He says he is quite willing to sell the products of Canada in Australia and New Zealand. Yes, he is big-hearted; he would give these people the sleeves out of his vest, no doubt, but he is not willing to take anything in return. Apparently he does not realize that trade is the exchange of goods. He is going to make the hole in the fence big enough to allow his chickens on his neighbour's garden, but not big enough to let his neighbour's chickens on his garden. That is the logic of his argument from across the floor of the house. If we are going to trade with other countries, certainly we must take something in return; there is no getting around that fact.
I have only another two or three minutes to speak, but in that short time I want to deal with the propaganda being carried on from across the floor, having in view the herding of the farmers into the camp of the high protectionists. One of the most bitter Conservative papers in southern Ontario admitted that sometimes tariffs created worse conditions after being applied than existed before. In the rubber industry they tried to bolster up a false price, and what was the effect? It stimulated production without the corresponding demand, and the rubber industry to-day is practically driven out of existence as a result of these false economics. The same thing applies in regard to sugar. Some producers in the United States are asking for a higher tariff, in spite of the fact that there is a total overproduction of sugar in the world to-day. The cure that is being recommended by them is that they be given a higher tariff in order that they might further increase the production of sugar, and further swamp a market that is already overcrowded. This is the type of economics being preached by the Conservative party the world over. It is the proud boast of our hon. friends opposite that
fifty-two countries have raised their tariffs. We will admit that; we will admit that fifty-two countries have stimulated production without a corresponding demand. Prdbably that is why we have so much unemployment and grief throughout the world. The great economists to-day are directing the minds of the intelligent people, or the people who are susceptible to reason, in the direction of removing to some extent the trade barriers which are bringing grief all over the world.
There has been a great deal said about retaliation against the United States. This has a direct bearing on the question of tariff now under discussion, and I want to say in regard to our American friends, that I doubt very much if the American tariff bill, when it is finally drafted and presented to the house, will contain any serious increases at all. They realize that if they increase the cost of production in the United States they cannot compete in export markets with countries maintaining lower costs of production.
Topic: SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.