March 17, 1921

UNION

Simon Fraser Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture)

Unionist

Mr. TOLMIE:

While the deputy is

looking up that information I would like to state the effectiveness of the work of the Health of Animals Branch. Previous to 1914 the disease known as dourine prevailed among range horses in Western Canada causing serious losses. The compensation paid in the year was no less than $48,000 for that one disease. We had a very efficient staff handling that work, including our present chief pathologist, Dr. Watson. That officer was able to discover a method of testing the blood of these animals thus rendering the diagnosis very easy. The following figures show the excellent results of the work done. In 1914, $48,000 was paid in compensation; 1915, $32,000; 1916, $17,000; 1917, $3,000; 1918, $1,340; 1919, $261; 1920, $70; and in 1921 nothing.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. MORPHY:

Before the minister

leaves this item I would like him to state what the difference is between tuberculosis and pleuro-pneumonia in cattle?

Would an animal affected with tuberculosis be rejected as a food product, and also would an animal affected with pleuropneumonia be rejected as a food product? And what is the difference, if any, between the two diseases?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Simon Fraser Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture)

Unionist

Mr. TOLMIE:

We may have tuberculosis in a number of stages. An animal might be affected with tuberculosis without any external symptoms whatever. In fact, I have seen cattle shown at our exhibitions that were beef fat and yet they were fairly putrid with tuberculosis. The chronic form might be found located in any part of the body, usually in the lymphatic glands, very often in the lungs, and sometimes in the intestines and in the liver and other organs; in fact, it might appear anywhere in the skin. In contagious pleuropneumonia you have the pleura and the lungs affected principally and the animal lives only a short time. In pleuro-pneumonia cases the carcases would be entirely destroyed. In tuberculosis all animals pass through our public abattoirs under inspection, and where the disease is generalized, that is, where it has reached a stage to indicate that the whole system may be affected, the animals are destroyed; but where only a few small organs are affected in a slight way, or the disease is incap-sulated, those affected parts are destroyed and the carcase is passed as fit for food. That is done in all abattoirs in every country and is considered a perfectly safe practice.

In reply to the hon. member who enquired regarding employees in New Brunswick, I may say that we have the following veterinary inspectors: D. McCuaig,

McAdam Junction; T. A. Ratte, Edmunds-ton; J. H. Shonyo, St. John; and one car inspector, Howlett, St. John. There are no meat inspectors there. The meat inspection system of the Health of Animals branch is carried on only in those abattoirs that slaughter for export or interprovincial trade. It is true that a good deal of the meat slaughtered under those conditions is used locally. But we do not maintain any inspection of slaughter houses which kill for local business only. That inspection is supposed to be within the purview of the municipalities and the provincial governments.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Donald Sutherland

Unionist

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

In reference to the inspection of animals slaughtered for export and interprovincial trade, it has always appeared to me to be a very peculiar state of affairs that we exercise

67i

such extreme caution in those cases and throw very little safeguards around the food that is consumed by our own people. It is true, as the minister has just said, that is left to the municipal authorities, but we all know that they do little or nothing in that respect, and surely if any people are deserving of these safeguards it is the people right in our own country. With reference to the accredited herds, it seems rather remarkable to me that only 212 head of cattle have been slaughtered under this system for which compensation has been paid.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Simon Fraser Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture)

Unionist

Mr. TOLMIE:

That was for last year.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Donald Sutherland

Unionist

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Well, I know of

one herd where over 80 head were slaughtered, and I know of other herds where various animals were slaughtered and in all those cases compensation has not yet been paid. I think the excuse given was that the department did not have funds to meet those particular claims. Is it not a fact that where many animals have been found to be suffering from tubercular trouble they have not been slaughtered, but have been disposed of in order to clear the disease out of the particular herd? I understand it is a common practice for dealers to purchase diseased animals from such herds and ship them into some other part of the province for sale by auction. Has the minister any information as to this practice?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Simon Fraser Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture)

Unionist

Mr. TOLMIE:

When a person applies

to come under the accredited herds system he hands his herd over entirely to the Veterinary Director General and his Health of Animals branch, and any animals condemned for slaughter, if not generalized, are shipped to an abattoir where they are slaughtered strictly under inspection of the Health of Animals branch. We do not permit a man to 'remove his animals from the premises and send them to another place to be auctioned off. While I am on this particular item I may say that the hon. member for Frontenac the other night in referring to a case where the Health of Animals branch had destroyed some animals for glanders, stated:

As it was, the farmers could not prepare their ground for the next year's crop; they could not even get out their potatoes or anything of that kind, and on the whole they were left in a very bad position as regards their crop for this year.

On making inquiry at the Health of Animals branch I find there were twenty-seven horses quarantined in the outbreak referred to divided among twelve owners.

Of five horses destroyed, three belonged to one owner, and of these one was a colt and could not he worked. This particular owner bought two new horses, giving him the same number of work horses that he had before. The other two horses belonged to two different owners. So that they suffered inconvenience to that extent while these changes were being made; and these men lost two horses.

Then, again, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) criticized the Health'of Animals Branch on account of their action in connection with an outbreak of hog cholera on the farm of one Alderson. He stated that Alderson said that his hogs were not infected with hog cholera and were free from disease. I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman was not fully informed or he would not have made the statement. In the first place, the ordinary garbage inspector who was sent down to inspect these hogs-this being a garbage feeding plant-had no difficulty whatever in diagnosing the disease among those hogs as hog cholera. He immediately advised the Health of Animals Branch inspectors; a careful inspection was made, and they had no difficulty in confirming the lay inspector's diagnosis. I may say that we permit the feeding of garbage to hogs only under license, for the reason that a great deal of this garbage-fed pork, particularly if imported, may communicate hog cholera. Unless pork is thoroughly cooked it may produce hog cholera if it comes from a hog which has had cholera or a hog which has had the double immunization treatment which is given in the United States. On these premises the inspectors found garbage that was not cooked, and any one breaking that rule forfeits the right to compensation. The son of the proprietor, who was on the premises at the time, admitted after some conversation with the inspectors that some hogs had already died. Under the rules he should have at once reported that to the Veterinary Inspector-General's Branch. I am sure that the hon. member for South Oxford and the hon. member for Frontenac would not have made the statement they did had they had the full information. It is only fair to our inspectors that this explanation should be made; for I am sure they are trying to do their best to keep our animals free from contagious disease.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Donald Sutherland

Unionist

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

With reference to the last remark of the hon. minister, I think I made it quite clear the other night when I referred to it that the man who had suffered the loss stated most emphatically,

and his son made an affidavit that no disease existed on his premises, that no hogs were sick and none had died. Since making- that statement I have received a report from the head of the Health of Animals Branch with regard to this matter which has given me some information that I did not have at that time, but which, I believe, emphasizes the justice of the claim made by the person whose two hundred and twelve hogs were destroyed by the1 inspector. It is true that the business he was carrying on was located near Toronto; it was what Was known as the old Humber piggery, erected by the Government of Ontario many years ago, and he has been carrying it on for quite a number of years. He has been breeding hogs as well as buying them. He claims that when the inspector came there he had in a separate pen some of the culls from the different litters. It is well known to any stock breeder that there are often some unthrifty pigs in a litter and that it is good business to separate them from the larger and more thrifty ones; so this man had a few unthrifty ones in a separate pen. The inspector looked at them and said: "Why, there must be something the matter with these pigs." He took their temperatures; he killed one of them and asserted that the pigs were diseased; that there was cholera among them and that they would all have to be destroyed.

The minister has stated to-night that this man's son admitted that a number of the pigs had died. Well, my information from the proprietor and his son is that they did not make any such admission; that they had not lost a pig in two years except some small pigs which had died while they were with the brood sows. Now, the one who should know whether or not there was disease among the animals would surely be the man who owned them. As to cooking the garbage, he has a complete outfit for that purpose. Before he could get a license from the Government he had to waive all claims for damages unless he could prove that the disease had been brought in from some outside source, so he would be careful to see that the garbage was well cooked. I understand that there is no piggery in the country that has been kept better or in a cleaner condition than this one, and the minister will find that his inspectors reported to that effect on previous occasions. When the inspector took the temperature of a number of these pigs and informed the proprietor that they were to be slaughtered, the proprietor asked the privilege of taking some of them

after they were slaughtered and dressing the carcasses because they were almost fit for market. A number of them were picked out that did not have any symptoms of disease. As a matter of fact this man stood outside the pen while the animals were driven out of twelve different pens and selected as they came out some of those that were fit for market-that is, that were fleshy enough and would meet the demands of the market. Thirty-three of these animals were dressed by the proprietor; the intestines were left alongside where the inspector could examine them, which he did-and not one animal of the thirty-three was found diseased.

It may be said that hog cholera will remain dormant. My experience has not been very great but I know of an instance that occurred a few years ago where inspectors went into a certain district, destroyed all the hogs in a certain locality and placed a valuation on them which was the most absurd that could be imagined- one would almost think that the men had never seen a hog before, judging from the valuation they placed upon these animals. The result was the appointment of an independent commissioner to take evidence in the matter and to place a value on the animals, and the matter was satisfactorily adjusted. The minister tells us that these men are above reproach; that they are the best men that can be found in Canada or in the world. We have heard that statement very often in reply to criticisms that have been levelled against men who are in the Department of Agriculture. Well, these men are like a good many others who go into the Civil Service, who have a soft job as long as they live and do not get too busy or pay too much attention to their work. That has been my experience, at least. In this case the person aggrieved makes the request that an independent commission of practical men take evidence in regard to the matter, and he is prepared to abide by the result. But he objects strenuously to being practically ruined by the act of some inspector. When animals of that kind were selling at the high price prevailing in April of last year, it is a serious matter to have 212 hogs slaughtered by an inspector under those conditions, particularly in view of the fact that the man, his son and his manager are prepared to substantiate every statement that they have made; that there was no disease in their herd; that not an animal died from disease, and that the food was cooked propel ly because they have all the appliances for

cooking it. There is a straight denial by the owner, his son and his manager of the statement of the inspector in this department, which we are told is composed of men who are the best to be found in any country. In any case, the action was a pretty high-handed one. These 33 hogs, which were not picked out because they did not show any signs of disease, but which were picked out by the proprietor who stood outside and selected them as they were driven out of different pens, did not show any signs of disease after they had been slaughtered, and they were all disposed of by him. The rest of the animals were destroyed. The proprietor claims that there was no disease; the minister's official claims that there was disease and that the man is not entitled to any compensation.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. MORPHY:

To whom were the 33 animals disposed of and by whom?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Donald Sutherland

Unionist

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

By the owner of the animals to either some packing house or dealers in Toronto.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
L LIB

Charles Murphy

Laurier Liberal

Mr. MURPHY:

With the consent of the inspector?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION
L LIB

John Patrick Molloy

Laurier Liberal

Mr. MOLLOY:

Were those animals

condemned by a lawful veterinary surgeon, an inspector under the Health of Animals Branch?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Donald Sutherland

Unionist

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

I am not sure whether he was a qualified veterinary surgeon. He was an inspector under the Health of Animals Branch. I could not say what his qualifications were, but from the information I have received, I do not think they were very good. It is impossible for a man to do business except under a heavy fine unless he has a license from the department, and when he gets a license he has to sign a statement to this effect:

In consideration of the granting of a license to me, I hereby agree to maintain my hogs in a clean, sanitary condition, to sell no hogs except for immediate slaughter, to notify the veterinary inspector if sickness appears among my hogs, to forfeit all claim for compensation in case it is necessary to destroy any of my hogs as a result of hog cholera unless it can be shown that the infection came from some other source than from feeding garbage.

He has to show that the disease had entered his herd from some other source than the feeding of garbage. In this particular case, the man claims that there was no disease; that his hogs were perfectly sound and healthy except for a few culls from litters that were put in a pen by

themselves on account of their unthrifty condition. That is rather a remarkable document to compel a man to sign before he is granted a license. These regulations, to which I have referred to-night, are not embodied in the Act for compensation for the slaughter of animals when diseased; they are made by virtue of power given to the department to make regulations. I am not objecting to that power remaining in the hands of the minister and his department if it is not abused; but I am satisfied by past experience that some of these men are not competent or safe men to be travelling around this country inspecting herds and doing the things they have done. I remember where one of these inspectors came to half a dozen farmers in my riding and in a sneering way went around, shot their hogs on their farms wherever they were to be found, and left without giving them any satisfaction. Eventually other inspectors and a commissioner had to be sent there in order to have the matter adjusted, and by the exercise of a little common sense the matter was satisfactorily adjusted. In view of the seriousness of the results, under conditions such as this to which I have referred, we ought to be very careful before we place unlimited power in the hands of any of these inspectors to go around the country in a high-handed manner and to do the things which have been done.

Before we pass this item, I should like to have some assurance from the minister that a further inquiry will be made into this matter, and that it will not be cut oif by a statement of one or two of his inspectors:

I have not the slightest doubt that, had the minister himself or the head of the Health of Animals Branch had some personal knowledge of conditions in that case, the matter would have been much more satisfactory, and I understand that they are placed in a somewhat awkward position by reason of some officials in that branch who have not been showing as good judgment as they might have done. If, as we are led to believe from statements of those inspectors, hog cholera was prevalent in that herd, then I contend that they are absolutely unfitted for the position which they hold if they permitted thirty-three animals to be slaughtered and placed on the market in this country. If hog cholera was through this herd of hogs to the extent to which we are led to believe it was, those animals should all have been condemned and destroyed instead of being placed on the market as food. It what better way could the disease have been spread broadcast, if this

disease is as dangerous and deadly as we believe it is.

When hog cholera enters a herd, there is no doubt in the mind of the owner or anyone else in the course of a very few days whether the disease is there or not. The matter is not open for argument or dispute at all, because the animals' lives will be very short; they will be turning up their feet in short order. I am sorry I have had to speak so strongly as I have in this matter. The other night, I referred to the fact that I had the temerity to write to the head of the branch in reference to this case a few months ago at the request of the owner who was born in the county of Oxford, who has lived there, whom I have known practically all his life, and who is a man of good standing. His son is a most exceptional young man, a man whose word I would consider to be beyond reproach, and who lived in the town of Ingersoll until a few years ago. If the owner, his son and the general manager are prepared to make the statements that they claim they are willing to make-and I believe the son has already made an affidavit to that effect- then a further inquiry should be made into this matter and the question cleared up, for the satisfaction, not only of the department, but of the people in general. I am satisfied that if that is done, it will be found that some of these inspectors have not shown as good judgment as we would like them to show.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
L LIB

John Patrick Molloy

Laurier Liberal

Mr. MOLLOY:

I should like to say a

word on this question of the competency or incompetency of inspectors generally. I think it was in the fall of 1905 that I happened to be appointed to that position myself in the province of Manitoba under the former government. Hon. Mr. Fisher was Minister of Agriculture at that time, and Dr. Rutherford was Veterinary Director General. The disease we had to deal with at that time was glanders entirely. The province of Manitoba and the whole of Western Canada was over-run with glanders, as can readily be proven by the records. That the chief inspector, myself and one or two others who were employed on this work at that time encountered great opposition is true. I remember very well in 1906 going to the town of Rathwell, to the barn of a livery man of the town, who was also a large farmer in the immediate district. It would be about the 1st of August; I am speaking from memory, but that was the date approximately. The number of horses I tested would be about 15, and if my memory serves me right, all

but one reacted. The owner of these horses and his'neighbours in the town appealed to me to let him have the use of the horses until he cut his crop. I went out and viewed the crop, and it was a splendid one.

I was not the chief inspector, but was working under Dr. C. D. MeGilvray, who is now principal of the Ontario Veterinary College. I wish to say for Dr. MeGilvray, that there is no abler man in the veterinary profession in this country to-day; there are others just as able, but none abler. I tried to communicate with him, but I could not get in touch with him either by telephone or telegraph. The only thing left for me to do was to wire to Ottawa. My telegram was answered by Dr. Hilton, and by the way, in answer to a question the other night I was informed that the Chief Veterinary Inspector was Dr. Hilton. I am well satisfied that he is. The office was new to me, and that is the reason I made the inquiry. He told me to use my own judgment. The day following the test of these fourteen or fifteen horses I went to Indian Ford, about six miles away, and there I condemned at least six or seven horses out of ten or twelve that I tested. The owner happened to be a widow, and she appealed to me because the news had been carried from Rathwell to Indian Ford as to what I might do there. In the meantime I had not received the telegram I have mentioned. The next night I went back, and I received the telegram telling me to use my own best judgment.

Foolishly for myself, I consented to leave these horses in the possession of the owners. They cut their crop, a matter of about a month or five weeks, and got it out of the way. The Veterinary Director General of that day demanded that the horses be destroyed on my report. I was busy in other parts of the province, and Dr. MeGilvray was sent out to destroy these animals. The stage was all set. The owner of the horses in Rathwell had three veterinarians on hand from the district immediately adjacent to the town, and they were prepared to put up a fight. They said: "There are no symptoms of these horses being glandered." In the meantime let me add that I first demanded that the livery horses and those that were clinical be taken out to be destroyed, and I did destroy three or four of them. These other horses had no outward symptoms of glanders. The only thing that was against them was my report, made after a very careful examination-I never make any other kind-and I had condemned them as being glandered.

Well, Dr. MeGilvray, who was chief in Manitoba, went out to handle this case. They had these three veterinarians on hand prepared to fight. There were no symptoms that a layman could see that these horses were glandered, but the symptoms in a clinical case are very simple and easily understood by the owner or by a passerby. Being somewhat of a diplomat, Dr. MeGilvray said to the owner "I will do this. Pick out your best horse"-if I remember, there were eleven-"put on as a valuation, whatever you and your confreres here may think fit, and if that horse is not glandered I pledge myself, and my position, that the Government will pay you the price of that horse, and no other horse will be destroyed unless this one is proven to be glandered. Those that are destroyed will be paid for." The owner said "Very well." The horse was destroyed by Dr. MeGilvray and he and the other three veterinarians made a post-mortem examination. They took a section of the lung of that horse, sent it to Dr. Bell, the city bacteriologist of Winnipeg, and awaited his report. In the meantime the people in the neighbourhood were saying that the Government would pay for this man's horse. I am sorry I have not the owner's name, but I did not know this matter was coming up to-night. What happened? Dr. Bell of Winnipeg made a thorough examination, microscopic and otherwise, and his report was this-"The best specimen of a glandered lung that I have ever examined."

The result was that the owner willingly consented to the destruction of the other ten and received his compensation, and I allowed him fair compensation. When I gave him that compensation sanctioned by the Parliament of this country, I gave him more than the government of any other country in the world was paying for a diseased animal, particularly a glandered animal. Canada at that time was paying more for diseased stock than any other country in the world, and since that time the compensation has been increased. We can well afford to increase the compensation, because the disease has largely disappeared from Canada.

I stand by the Health of Animals Branch of this Government, and of the previous Government, until some stronger evidence is laid before the House than was given by my hon. friend from South Oxford tonight. I say that these men are qualified, and I stand by the Minister of Agriculture, I stand by the Veterinary Director General and by his assistants until my hon.

friend or anyone else can satisfy me or prove to the majority in this House that the people's money is being paid to inspectors who do not know their duty.

In the Indian Ford case, which I dealt with myself, Dr. Rutherford said: "I have your report. Go out and re-test these animals, and if they re-act destroy them." What did I find when I arrived? I found there the local veterinarian from the town of Holland ready to find fault with anybody and everybody because he did not happen to do the work. I re-tested those animals in this man's presence. He came there to work his game of bluff, but everybody does not succeed in working that on me; at least he did not. I took out these animals and destroyed them, and in doing that, I did that family a great favour. I want to warn the Minister of Agriculture, if warning is needed, and theVeterinary Director General, to advise their inspectors to be careful in exercising any leniency in a caseof glanders or any other disease. Within six miles of my home in the year 1906-this was in November and the

others were in August-I also granted the use of three horses to a man to do his fall ploughing, and that man gave me more trouble than the Tory party ever did. I went out of my way and risked my reputation as a veterinary inspector to give him a chance to do his fall ploughing, and what did he do? He promised faithfully that when he finished his work he would consent to the destruction of the animals. Did he do it? Well, I guess he did not. He called for a veterinarian from the town of Emerson, and in the meantime he defied me to go to his place. It was a waste of his time to tell me that. When I arrived there, however, I found that the other man was already on the scene. The test was made and the animals reacted. I destroyed them and through the laws passed by a former Government I paid him more for diseased animals than the law in any other country would allow. I paid him the compensation allowed for animals not worth 5 cents. In 1906, in Manitoba, two human beings, two young men, died as a result of contagion from contact with glandered animals. I am not acquainted with my hon. friend's case. Perhaps he is right; I am not prepared to contradict him. He is not a young man, and he is not a fool. He is a member of this House and has made what I consider to be a serious statement. If I made such a statement as that made by the hon. member for

South Oxford, I would do one of two things-I would either press the charge to the hilt, or I would do the other thing.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Donald Sutherland

Unionist

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

How would you go about it?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
L LIB

John Patrick Molloy

Laurier Liberal

Mr. MOLLOY:

How did these people go about it? They brought in all the assistance they desired; they even brought in political assistance. Now, I did not want to say that at first, but I say it now. They brought in veterinarians opposed to the Government of the day, opposed to me, and opposed to my chief. They had these men there. That animal was destroyed in the town of Rathwell, in the presence of perhaps two hundred persons, and a section of the lung was taken by Dr. McGil-vray and put into a glass jar. All this was done in the presence of these people, and the jar was afterwards sealed and expressed, the cost being defrayed by Dr. McGilvray, at his own expense. Would my hon. friend try to make me believe, if I were the owner of 240 hogs, and they were condemned for hog cholera, and I were convinced as a layman that they were not infected, that I would not have done exactly as those people did? I have no fault to find with those who acted in that way to me, except that I went out of my way to do something for them and they turned upon me like an adder. But it was proven to the hilt that I was right and they were wrong. I would do as they had done if I were convinced, as my hon. friend from South Oxford is certainly convinced by the statement of the owner and his son, that the animals were not diseased. Why did he stand by and allow them to be destroyed? The Government of Canada was responsible for what was done. They can be held responsible, and that is the ground on which I would have proceeded. There was one other case. In this case the horses reacted but 10 p.m. were not clinical and I left the animals in the possession of the owner, Mr. Walsh. When I was ordered back to make the re-test, the animals reacted and I destroyed them. That is the only man I dealt with, to whom I extended a kindness, who did not resent it afterwards so far as I was concerned. I will stake my reputation as a veterinarian, that the man who condemned the hogs, if he was a veterinarian employed by this Government, or by the former Government, knew his work, and carried out his orders and the chances are that the man who

owned the stock and the people in that neighbourhood have been benefited in consequence.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Donald Sutherland

Unionist

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

It is quite evident, from my hon. friend's last remarks, that it would be futile to attempt to convince him, for the reason that he is convinced already, that the inspectors were right.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
L LIB

John Patrick Molloy

Laurier Liberal

Mr. MOLLOY:

I convinced the other inspectors.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink
UNION

Donald Sutherland

Unionist

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

I have no doubt the hon. member would exercise diplomacy and good sense in dealing with a case such as I have mentioned, but I think he will admit that there is a wide difference between a horse with glanders and a hog with cholera. There is no comparison between them; the conditions are not similar. The hon. member knows a great deal more about veterinary science than I do, and I think he will agree with me that when hog cholera breaks out in a herd there is not much doubt in the mind of the owner, or of anybody else, as to whether the disease exists or not. It does not require much time or insight to ascertain the fact; there is abundance of evidence to prove it. I pointed out that the owner's son had made an affidavit to the effect that the food was properly cooked, that there was no sick animal there, that none had died from the disease, and that hog cholera had not been found in the pens while he had been there for nearly a year and a half. That affidavit was forwarded to the department. Now, the hon. member for Provencher asks: why did he not prove this matter if he was in doubt? I may point out to him that the inspector valued these hogs and led the owner to believe that he would be compensated. He put a valuation on every animal slaughtered, and that information is in the hands of the Veterinary Inspector General to-day. The hogs were destroyed. It was impossible to get evidence. All the evidence available was the fact that he had dressed and disposed of hogs for food from this destroyed herd. The hon. member will agree that it Would be difficult for him under the circumstances to get evidence. The inspector told him: "We are going to kill every animal. Clean up as many as you can to-day, because I am going to shoot every hog on the premises to-morrow." And he did so. These thirty-three hogs were driven out of a number of different pens. I understand from practically every pen, with the exception of one, where there were some small common pigs, was cleaned out. He has given evidence to that effect and

expects that the Government will be reasonable before he takes steps. It will be readily understood that it is a difficult matter to collect compensation from a Government or from a department if they refuse, as they have done in this case, to consider the matter, simply brushing it aside.

When I spoke before I referred to the experience which we had a few years ago with some of these infallible inspectors. The evidence that was reported on that occasion demonstrated clearly to my mind not only that they are not infallible, but that some of them are not even reliable.

I do not say that is true of all of them.

I believe that the Veterinary Director General is as careful in connection with these matters as it is possible to be, but here again you have a system under which men are not selected because of their judgment or because they are diplomatic-they are selected at random by the Civil Service Commission, sitting here in Ottawa, who do not know whether or not a man is competent for that work. The man may pass the examination to which he is subjected, he may be a graduate of a veterinary school, but that does not mean that he is either a reliable person or one suitable to undertake the duties which will be entrusted to him. I do not know any of these inspectors. Many of them, I recognize, are suitable men and would perform their duties all right. I am not criticizing them. I know nothing good, bad or indifferent about these different inspectors who inspected these animals, but I repeat again that when the owner and when his son, a most estimable young man, made affidavits that no disease existed in the herd and that no animals had died, they were entitled to consideration. The inspector who examined these hogs made a valuation and allowed the owner to believe that he would be compensated. Therefore I say it is pretty high-handed work on the part of the department to act as it did, and for the minister to get up here and declare that he has the best system of inspection in the world, and that these inspectors are almost infallible and beyond reproach. There are two sides to every story, and, from my knowledge of the men on whose behalf I am speaking to-night, I affirm that they are just as responsible and just as reliable as any of the inspectors of the department, and that may be saying a good deal.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RULE 17C
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE PRICES
Permalink

March 17, 1921