May 1, 1953

CANADA - XJ.S.A.


Balance of Trade in Agricultural Products Quantities: - Unit 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953- Jan. and Feb. 1953- Jan.From Canada Into Canada From Canada Into Canada From Canada Into Canada From Canada Into Canada From Canada Into CanadaTotal-Agricultural Products $ million 258 209 302 263 382 321 303 269 Wheat 1,000 bu 8,072 7 14,951 0 37,917 6 44,082 4 1,520 0Oats 1,000 bu. 18,489 309 16,297 263 48,826 1 72,824 0 3,746 0Barley 1,000 bu. 13,661 11,901 11,913 IS 1«6 '441 Cattle 1,000 hd. 417 1* 457 1* 9,37 1* Beef and veal, fresh 1,000 1b. 94,870 80 81,805 97 91 749 943 1 940 Bacon and hams 1,0001b. 5 0 5,282 i 3,500 1,315 2] 560 116 463 0Cheese 1,000 1b. 1,868 342 3,023 525 2,726 758 1,546 562 200 19Skimmed milk powder 1,000 lb. 5,664 1,053 2,916 844 203 2,632 12,031 138 7 6Eggs, shell 1,000 doz. 1,923 22 4,578 44 4,687 1,768 7,156 205 1,196 6Apples, fresh 1,000 bu. 1,638 186 2,361 104 1,953 281 1,486 351 331 11Potatoes, table 1,000 bu. 1,841 542 2,597 1,612 1,390 1,156 398 3,628 447 6Potatoes, seed 1,000 bu. 7,096 3 3,881 13 3,062 11 1,284 64 958 0=less than one-half unit used. * Pure-bred only. 4652 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Agriculture 68108-294|


CANADA-U.S.A.


Balance of Trade in Agricultural Products Values: - 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 Jan. and Feb. 1953 JanuaryFrom Canada Into Canada From Canada Into Canada From Canada Into Canada From Canada Into Canada From Canada Into Canadamillion dollars 258-3 208-9 302-0 262-5 382-3 321-5 302-6 268-6 Wheat 17-0 0 28-5 0 65-0 0 72-5 0 2-9 0Oats 15-1 *2 15-0 [DOT]2 48-8 0 61-0 0 3-5 021-0 19-4 17-5 27-3 [DOT]6 060-7 [DOT]4f 78-5 [DOT]4f 62-6 * 7f 4-0 [DOT]5| 028-3 [DOT]1 32-9 [DOT]1 49-8 [DOT]6 1-9 [DOT]5 0Bacon & hams [DOT]2 0 3-4 [DOT]i 2-6 [DOT]5 2-6 [DOT]i *4 0Cheese *8 [DOT]2 1-2 [DOT]3 1-2 *4 1-5 [DOT]6 [DOT]1 0Skimmed milk powder [DOT]6 [DOT]1 [DOT]3 [DOT]1 0 [DOT]2 1-3 0 0 0Eggs, shell 1-0 [DOT]1 2-1 [DOT]2 2-3 1-0 2-9 [DOT]7 [DOT]5 0Apples, fresh 3-7 *4 5-3 [DOT]3 4-8 [DOT]6 4-7 *9 10 0Potatoes, table 1-6 [DOT]9 2-0 2-2 M 2-1 1-0 8-8 [DOT]9 07-8 0 4-0 0 3-0 0 3-5 *2 2-1 > ><



cn



0 = less than $50,000. * Includes all important agricultural commodities produced in either country, and foods and industrial raw materials derived from these agricultural products, t Pure-bred only. CT> Supply-Agriculture



Supply-Agriculture CANADA-AUSTRALIA Value of Imports into Canada - 1949 1950 1951 1952$ $ S $Total Imports 27,429,000 32,803,000 46,228,000 20,319,001Farm Products 24,791,000 30,308,000 43,508,000 18,628,001Currants, dried 478,015 699,685 594,022 692,72;Raisins 3,197,766 4,092,595 3,175,093 4,254,681Canned Peaches and Apricots. 292,010 406,688 528,308 270,341Canned Pineapple 2,039,128 1,522,070 1,077,185 226,24;Sugar 8,486,971 10,966,777 14,129,862 4,409,24!Canned Beef 23,338 1,959,228 845,94(Edible Gelatine 150,243 186,685 158,457 178,72;Sausage Casings 432,202 435,896 797,721 451,69!Wool 8,964,175 10,843,336 19,112,269 6,373,39!174,529 224,475 CANADA-NEW ZEALAND Value of Imports into Canada - 1949 1950 1951 1952$ $ $ $Total Imports 8,910,000 11,855,000 30,107,000 14,231,OOCFarm Products 8,796,000 11,791,000 29,999,000 14,162,00C81,672 69,641 103,196Sheep skins, raw 325,289 275,071 200,575 44,7451,649 226,487 168,5223,173,164 2,484,4241,556,738 1,671,881 1,652,881368,001 2,351Sausage Casings 998,296 2,114,981 3,770,631 3,029,95CWool, raw 6,274,807 6,863,473 20,105,386 6,213,785 I should like to make another statement in reply to a question asked last night by the hon. member for Selkirk concerning the proposed dam on Plum creek-I believe that is the proper name, instead of Plum Coulee- on southeast 6-2-4 west one. The application was first made in 1936 for a dam at this site and surveys and plans were completed in 1939; but nothing further was done about it because of the war. It was again brought up in 1950 and a further examination made. However, a decision has not been reached to build the dam, in view of the high cost in relation to the quantity of water which would be stored. It is considered there is considerable merit a this project as there are a number of armers in this area, which is suitable for he growing of canning crops, and it is close a two canneries. In the circumstances, a urther study is going to be made this year a determine whether alternative methods an be devised for the construction of satis-actory works. One of the main problems 3 the difficult nature of the materials for onstruction and it is proposed to have definite oil mechanic studies made this year.


PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Mr. Chairman, I under-tand the item now before the committee has o do with irrigation projects. I wish to ay a few words, particularly in view of the ery frank answers given this morning by he Prime Minister to questions asked him vhen the orders of the day were called.

Certainly now no one can be under any lisapprehension that there is any possibility- ny probability-of this great project being iroceeded with in the immediate future, if t all. I know it will come as a very great hock to the people of Saskatchewan to learn hat, after all the years of advocacy of this iroject by the Minister of Agriculture and by ither members in the House of Commons, vithout regard to party, Saskatchewan finds tself now in a position where everything s up in the air, and there is almost no irospect of anything being done to proceed vith this project at all.

As one looks back over the years I am ure it will be in the memories of hon. mem->ers that this subject has been discussed iver and over again. I think one of the nost revealing of the discussions on the ubject was on October 13 and 14 of 1949, is set out in the debates for that year.

Certainly the question of cost had been dearly established in the mind of the Minister if Agriculture, for on that date, as reported it page 772 of Hansard, he said this:

Coming back to this question of whether the South Saskatchewan river project should be built vith the assistance of the provincial government, nay I say that, when the present government of Saskatchewan took over, the revenues of the irovince were about $32 million. According to the tatement made a few moments ago those revenues ire now about $53 million.

And following an intervention in the debate jy another hon. member the minister pro-:ceded as follows:

If the South Saskatchewan river project was milt under conditions that existed some three or our years ago it would cost in the neighbourhood if $60 million.

And then Hansard records that the debate :ontinued in this way:

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink
CCF
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

If it had to be built under conditions

Supply-Agriculture

as they are today that amount would be increased by perhaps $10 million or maybe a little more. But it would be absolutely impossible to construct the South Saskatchewan river project in less than ten years. The total expenditure required would be averaged out over that period of time at somewhere between $6 million and $8 million per year.

The information left with the house and country was that the engineers, experienced as they were with P.F.R.A., had no doubt whatever that the total cost of the project would not be over $100 million. That it was to be a federal project was put before the committee on that occasion by the hon. member for Regina. After an interruption by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Regina City is reported as saying, and I quote from page 794 of Hansard of October 14, 1949:

I have heard the hon. minister and other people discuss these irrigation matters in western Canada for a number of years. I heard the hon. minister discuss it during the last election, and I also went out and discussed it. It was always our understanding that the main projects, such as the dam at Elbow, would be purely federal projects-the hon. minister never tried to create any other impression-

All through the years-

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

My memory of that statement is that the hon. member is not reading it all because the reason the hon. member for Regina City rose was to prove the very opposite.

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink
PC
LIB
PC
CCF

Wilbert Ross Thatcher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Thatcher:

The minister certainly did last night.

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink
LIB

Emmett Andrew McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Liberal

Mr. McCusker:

Only in the hon. member's mind. The hon. member is a little confused about it. We were getting along quite well last night until he put his foot into it.

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Address the Chair.

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink
LIB

Emmett Andrew McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Liberal

Mr. McCusker:

The minister has been quite clear in stating that when the dam is completed it is the responsibility of the provincial government to provide for the distribution of water.

I have looked into this matter very thoroughly because the constituency which I represent is seriously concerned about water.

He made it very clear that there never was any question whatever-

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

Since we are having this a matter of record may I say that the matter under discussion was a situation put up by some members of the opposition to the effect that the federal government had undertaken to do the whole project, not only the dam but everything else, and pay for it. What the hon. member for Regina City was attempting to prove was that they never said any such thing.

Supply-Agriculture

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

The minister can revise his own words as to what he said and recall the memory of the house, as is frequently the case as exigencies change what is required, but those are the words of the hon. member for Regina City. I suggest that power is necessarily the responsibility of the federal government. That was the understanding because the principal use of the power will be to provide for the distribution of irrigation waters.

In 1953, after all the promises that have been made, we finally find ourselves in the position where on the eve of an election- certainly the words of the Prime Minister a few moments ago with regard to the criminal law amendments being allowed to go over to another session indicate more clearly than has been indicated yet that the election is close at hand-a new proposition is set out in the letter of the Minister of Agriculture to the premier of Saskatchewan. But the people of Saskatchewan are not going to be bamboozled into believing that they are going to secure this dam out of the kind of correspondence that has passed between the Minister of Agriculture and the government of Saskatchewan. There is not a line or word in the carefully-worded letter, to be found on page 4444 of Hansard of April 27, written by the Minister of Agriculture, that indicates an undertaking to do anything in connection with the construction of the dam. There is not one solitary thing.

Topic:   CANADA-U.S.A.
Permalink

May 1, 1953