February 25, 1902

CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

I assume there is some correspondence between the federal government and the provincial governments on this matter, and I think we ought to be in possession of that.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

That correspondence would be very voluminous.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

The hon. gentleman had better move for a return and I will bring it down.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

The minister cannot get this item passed without giving this information.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

If I am to rend all the correspondence between the director general of public health and the local authorities on this matter, it will take the House several days to listen to me.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

If the minister places the correspondence at our disposal he will have the assistance of this side of the House.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

I will have to get copies made.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

The minister has a staff of officers, and the difficulty of getting copies is not insuperable.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

Has there been correspondence with the provincial authorities of Quebec ?

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

Yes.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

The minister told us that we spent $75,000 last year in connection with this service, but as a matter of fact we spent $20,000 more.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

That was the figure supplied me by the acting deputy minister, and I took it to be correct.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

I will find out where the discrepancy is.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

If the minister does that he will do something which is less necessary than what I want him to do. During that |

year we were threatened with small-pox, because in the expenditure of $94,000 there is included the cost of vaccine and patrolling and other items which indicate that we feared an invasion of the disease. The minister tells us that this year we are spending not only that amount and $15,000 more, but also a great deal more than that. In what particulars have that increased expenditure been made. Now, the question put by the hon. gentleman for Toronto (Mr. Osier) is very pertinent. In the province of Quebec when we are threatened with an invasion of small-pox, we attend to it ourselves, a fact which is borne out by the statement of the minister that although there is smallpox in the New England states, he has not been asked to take precautions in regard to the frontier of Quebec, and he has not done so. The frontier of Quebec is guarded, and I assume it is done by the local authorities. But the minister has guarded the frontier of other provinces. This very fact shows that the correspondence with the provincial authorities is necessary. I want to know if the department follows one rule in oue province and another rule in another province.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

No.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

Then there must be some fixed rule in the department, and we have a right to know what it is before we vote this increased expenditure of $30,000.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
L-C

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

I venture to say that the minister cannot tell me how many cases of small-pox have occurred on the frontier during the past month, because so far as I can see from the report of the director general of public health, there is very little reference to that matter. It is not the duty of the department to tell us where the small-pox is located along the frontier. I halve here the Public Health Report of the United States, published according to Act of Congress, and this report shows at a glance the number of cases of small-pox in the frontier states and the date of each case. In Minnesota, for instance, there are 2,676 cases and 12 deaths; in North Dakota, 183 cases and 1 death, and so on. That is a very satisfactory report, and it shows that the authorities in the United States are alive to this important matter, and place before the public the very information which we have tried to get from the minister this evening. If it does cost' the people of the United States money they have something to show for it; but so far as I can find from the report of our department, there is nothing to justify the expenditure that we are making.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

The information contained in that report issued by the United States authorities, is obtained from the state authorities. We have not done that.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Permalink

February 25, 1902