April 21, 1922

CON

William Garland McQuarrie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McQUARRIE:

I would like to impress upon the minister the hardships that will be suffered by exhibition associations if a reduction of even twenty-five per cent is made in the grants for this purpose. I believe in economy, and I suppose we must think about economizing, but it seems to me that this is just about the last place where we should start that principle. I think we should do everything possible to encourage agriculture, and it seems to me that one of the best ways to do so is to encourage the holding of these fairs. In my constituency we hold an exhibition under the auspices of the Royal Agricultural and Industrial Society, an exhibition that boasts of being the best in the West, and personally I think it is a very good show indeed. We have a splendid display of agricultural exhibits and of live stock; it is a very complete and interesting exhibition. Unfortunately, I believe the exhibition associations have counted on having the full grant this year. I believe they were told that before any reduction was made they would be notified and afforded the opportunity of being heard by the minister. They received no notice whatever that any reduction was to be made this year, and they have made up their prize lists, and based their expenditures, on the expectation of the full grant. Now, I submit to the minister, it is hardly fair that this reduction be made without notice. I would also suggest to him that before his policy in this regard is finally determined he give the fair managers the opportunity of making representations to him. I think they have asked for a conference, and I would suggest in all

seriousness to the minister that he might very well consider the advisability of having this conference with the fair managers of the whole Dominion before he finally adopts his policy with regard to exhibition grants.

Topic:   DATE OF THE BUDGET
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I think my hon. friend looks so good natured over it that he rather expects this small reduction.

Topic:   DATE OF THE BUDGET
Permalink
CON
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

I would like to ask the minister whether there is to be any change in the vote for the National Live Stock Records. I believe there has been a vote of $20,000 a year for quite a number of years back to assist the National Live Stock Records in carrying on their work. It is well known that the work of the records board has increased very much during the last few years, and the live stock associations of the Dominion find a good deal of difficulty in carrying on at the present time-in fact, some of them have been compelled to increase their registration fees as a result of the increased obligations that they have had to assume. J notice there are twenty-six of these record associations and I will hurriedly run over the list. They are:

Canadian Aberdeen Angus Association, Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association, Can. Belgian Draft Horse Breeders' Ass'n, Canadian Brown ISwiss Association, Clydesdale Horse Association of Canada, French Canadian Cattle Breeders' Ass'n, Can. French Coach Breeders' Association, French Canadian Horse Breeders' Ass'n, North American Galloway Association, Canadian Goat Society, Canadian Guernsey Breeders' Association, Canadian Hackney Horse Society, Canadian Hereford Breeders' Association, Canadian Jersey Cattle Club, Canadian Kennel Club, Canadian P'ercheron Horse Breeders Ass'n, Canadian Pony 'Society, Canadian Red Polled Association, Canadian -Sheep Breeders' Association, Canadian 'Shire Horse Association, Dominion Shorthorn Breeders' Association, Canadian Silver Fox Breeders' Association, Canadian Standard Bred Horse Society, Canadian Suffolk Horse Society, Canadian ISwine Breeders' Association, Canadian Thoroughbred Horse 'Society.

I think the House will agree as to the importance of keeping the record of the pure-breds of all stock raised in this country. I believe that the outlook for the farmers of Canada depends more upon raising stock of a high standard than upon attempting to supply the demand for inferior animals, and I do not know of anything that will conduce more to the promotion of the interests of the live stock industry in the Dominion than assisting the live stock associations to carry on.

Supply-Live Stock

As I pointed out, the grant, I believe, for a number of years has been $20,000 per year, and I believe that for some time past the associations have been making requests of the Government for an increase. In this connection I might point out that the money received by these associations for fees, and for recording pedigrees and transferring records, in 1917 was $111,000 approximately; in 1918 $123,000; in 1919, $147,000; in 1920, $155,000; and in 1921, $171,689. There has been an increase in those five years of $60,615 in the fees they collected, which indicates that the work has spread very rapidly. I think more attention is being paid by the farmers of this country to improving the various breeds and keeping a record as to the purity of the breeds than there has been at any time in the past. I believe the department has endeavoured to do good work along this line for many years, and il am in sympathy with the demands which have been made by the live stock associations in the requests for greater assistance along this line. This item of $1,000,000 is the same amount that has been placed in the Estimates for many years past. The charge is often made that the grants for agricultural purposes are not as large as they might be, and this is one thing that might well receive the favourable consideration of the minister and the Government. I think an increased grant should be given to the National Live-stock Record, because the increase in the salaries which they had to pay has been very great indeed. I understand the salaries paid by the Records Board amounted to somewhere about $50,000 per year, and $20,000 seems a very small amount to vote towards assisting the Live-stock Records Board. I would suggest that the minister consider the requests which have been made by the Records Board and the Live-stock Associations for a more generous contribution toward expenses. The necessity should not be forced upon these associations to increase the registration fees, as the boards have done during the past few years. In the case of some of the boards the registration fees have been doubled during the last year or two as a result of an increased expenditure, and this is not conducive to the maintenance of the purity of the breeds, because in many instances, I believe, animals are allowed to go unrecorded if the fees are too high.

Topic:   DATE OF THE BUDGET
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I quite agree with the hon. gentleman in all he has said. I am

not familiar with the details as to the amount of assistance given in past years, but I have in my hand an itemized summary of what we are giving them now. I might point out that not only is this an important branch with respect to preserving the records and pedigrees of animals, but it is also important by reason of the fact that it is taking care of new lines of activity. The work is extending all the time in many lines of work, which, in years past, they did not take care of, and I have no doubt as time goes on their activities will increase and widen in scope:

Grant to the Live Stock records $20,000 00

Printing

5,944 26Stationery

500 00

Salaries, for employees. Live

Stock Branch 5,840 00

Cartage

120 00Rent

6,249 00Taxes

1,359 75Lighting

239 23Power

19600Water

100 63Elevator Attendants

1,260 00

Free Postage, estimated as

worth 12,000 00

Total $53,808 00

In addition to what they have been getting last year, they have been given certain printing assistance and also certain additional office accommodation. I do not suppose there is a branch in the whole department where the officials would not tell you they could spend more money to advantage, and this particular activity is similar to the other branches in that respect. It is not spoken of usually as a branch, but it is similar to a branch, I have no doubt they could spend more money to advantage. They require additional office space and printing in addition to what they got last year. That is about the only difference.

Topic:   DATE OF THE BUDGET
Permalink
PRO

George Arthur Brethen

Progressive

Mr. BRETHEN:

I belong to a breed

association of some two or three thousand members, who are receiving no assistance, but who have had to increase their fees, and I believe this money might be used to better advantage. While I am in favour of the grant to this industry, I am not favourable to devoting the whole grant to the interest of special breeds. I believe this matter might well be taken into consideration in making an additional grant for this purpose. Since coming to this House I have been more or less conversant with the principle of public ownership, but when we have a breed organization which is capable of conducting its affairs to its members' satisfaction at least, and quite as economically as the Government would, I fail to see the advan-

Supply-hive Stock

tage of. Government ownership in the matter of records. I draw this to the attention of the minister, because it might otherwise be overlooked.

Topic:   DATE OF THE BUDGET
Permalink
CON

Joseph Henry Harris

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HARRIS:

Last night the minister

was good enough to allow this matter to stand over, to give him an opportunity to bring in facts and figures in regard to the hog cholera, and perhaps the impression was left on the House yesterday that the amount of hog cholera was in proportion to the amount of compensation. Some questions were put to the minister and we expected an answer to-day. Before the estimates are passed, I should be glad if the minister would answer these questions, as briefly as possible, so that the House would understand that the amount of compensation is not an index to the amount of hog cholera prevalent .in the Dominion, but rather that the number of cases recorded and the number of cases where compensation was not paid would, perhaps, be a better index.

Topic:   DATE OF THE BUDGET
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I have been so

busy with certain other phases of the live stock question that I am sure I will be excused for not going back to hog cholera until I was asked to do so. However, I have a statement here and I do not know how good my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) will consider the authority. The statement reads:

Reasons for not permitting the use of double treatment for hog cholera in Canada. The double treatment means the simultaneous injection of hogs cholera serum and the active virus of the disease.

1. Double treatment perpetuates the disease.

Every double treated hog is a carrier of the

virus for an indefinite period after the treatment, and during that time may convey the disease to susceptible hogs.

That is better put than what I said yesterday, but the meaning is the same:

2. Double treatment sometimes causes outbreaks of hog cholera. Experience of the United States shows heavy losses from so-called "breaks" after treatment.

3. Double treatment may disseminate other diseases. During the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States in 1914-15, the disease was spread in some instances by this means.

4. Double treatment is unnecessary in Canada as losses from this disease are very small.

There is my authority. I have no doubt the disease is serious in spots. In the West about ten years ago I saw outbreaks that were exceedingly serious. The disease may exist there now, but I have not seen any cases of it recently:

During the past year only 429 hogs were destroyed for hog cholera in all Canada. Compare this with the average annual loss in the United States for three years of $55,000,000.

Of course, we must take into consideration the difference in population. I have not figured that out, neither has Dr. Torrance.

5. Control of hog cholera by immunization when once begun must be kept up indefinitely. All young hogs in double-treated herds must be treated or disease will appear. The cost of this to hog growers in the United States amounts to $7,500,000 a year for serum and virus, not counting payment to veterinarians applying the treatment.

Serum and virus alone cost $7,500,000. Travelling expenses in administering this serum must be enormous.

Topic:   DATE OF THE BUDGET
Permalink

HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.


Number of swine destroyed Compensation For the years ending- March, 31, 1919. . . . 2,163 $23,342 74March 31, 1920.. .. 1,642 19,001 71March 31, 1921. . . . 3,354 22,003 33March 31, 1922. . .. 429 3,055 06For the March year ending- 31, 1922. . . . Number of swine serum treated .. .. 2,557 For the March year ending- 31, 1921-22.. Serum Purchased 261,000 c.c. Purchase price $3,581 There is no regularity in the decrease in number of animals slaughtered; the number varies. This year the number is noticeably larger than that of last year. Then Dr. Torrance makes this statement: The method of dealing with hog cholera in Canada is to first control the feeding of garbage on a large scale by strictly enforcing Regulation 882, which provides for the licensing of all parties feeding garbage collected from other premises; (2) strict supervision of these premises to ensure proper sanitation and early detection of disease; (3) outbreaks are dealt with by promptly destroying all affected hogs, and by serum treating-all hogs that have been in direct or indirect contact with them, and (4) by serum treating all hogs returned from public stock yards to farms for breeding or feeding whenever hog cholera makes its appearance in the yards or vicinity. By these means hog cholera has been kept down to a minimum during the past few years. I think this is the information that my hon. friend desired most. Number of swine destroyed for hog cholera, for which there was no compensation paid. For the year ending- March 31, 1919 206March 31, 1920 89March 31, 1921 1,341March 31, 1922 108 If I have omitted anything, I have done so inadvertently. Supply-Live Stock


LIB

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. MACLEAN (Prince) :

I think it would be only fair to give a tabulated statement regarding the different provinces. We would like to know where this hog cholera is. Perhaps the minister has not the information.

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I understand that hog cholera is more prevalent in this province and in British Columbia. There is also some in Quebec. I understand there is a little all over; but in some provinces it is almost exterminated, while British Cor lumbia and Ontario have probably more than other provinces, but not to such an extent as to make it pronouncedly conspicuous.

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Do I understand that, during the year 1920, only 89 hogs were slaughtered for which compensation was refused?

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

That was for the year ending March 31, 1920. A very small number of hogs were slaughtered that year. These amounts correspond to the totals I have cited; there is a relationship between them. In 1920, the total number of swine destroyed was 1642; the next year the total number was 3,354, twice as many.

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

The matter which I brought to the minister's attention last night occurred in March, 1920, when over 200 animals belonging to one man were slaughtered and compensation was refused. This must be for a different year.

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

All hogs actually slaughtered in one year may not appear in that year's accounts. As fiscal years come together, payment for some hogs slaughtered in one year will appear in the accounts for the following year. That is unavoidable. That is so in the case of the year 1921, where the number slaughtered increases from 89 to 1,341. Should there be a heavy slaughter at the end of one fiscal year, the number will show big at the beginning of the next year.

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

It seems remarkable that there should have been so many during the year 1921. The impression prevails in many quarters that it was the policy of the department to discontinue the licensing of people to feed garbage to their hogs; and if the purpose is to stop the spread of the disease, I do not know that it is not a good policy to pursue. Was any effort made in that year to discourage the feeding of garbage by withholding compensation from those who had sustained

losses? It has been pointed out to me that a number of people have had their animals destroyed and that the department has refused to issue licenses.

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

This large increase in hogs that were slaughtered without compensation in 1921 was due to the fact that we had a larger amount of imported bacon. Inasmuch as 90 per cent of hog cholera is traceable to garbage, there was thought to be a relationship between the amount of hog cholera, and the larger amount of importations of American bacon, which proves that that is the source of the contagion. That is good circumstantial evidence, at all events.

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Does the minister contend that the importation of American bacon was the chief source of the hog cholera that was introduced into this country?

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Yes. The portion that goes into the swill barrel carries the germ. With regard to the matter of discouraging the licensing of the feeding of garbage, licenses have been refused men who violated the regulations in the past. Such men could not have their licenses renewed, and as a matter of fact they did not get them in the first place until they complied with the conditions laid down. The only change that has been contemplated at all has been the substitution of larger kettles for cooking garbage, so as to avoid the necessity of procuring more expensive boilers. It has been pointed out that if the hog owners were allowed to use larger kettles that could be looked after by unskilled labour, they could feed more cheaply than if they had an expensive boiler that necessitated the services of a semi-expert when the boss was away from home. I have not had an opportunity of looking into the question, but it seems. rational enough.

Topic:   HOG CHOLERA-SWINE DESTROYED, COMPENSATION, ETC.
Permalink

April 21, 1922