Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.
I certainly am supporting the minister in having a very rigid inspection, but I am not supporting him in the idea of destroying property for Mr. T. CHISHOLM
the general benefit of the people of Canada and not making compensation, because the result is that the effect of the loss goes back through the different purchasers until finally it reaches the farmers, and there as a consequence the diseased meat i3 allowed to stagnate, as it were. I have no doubt the provincial authorities may possibly be responsible, but the result is that the effort that is being made by the minister in these lines is increasing the trouble that we have from the inefficiency of the local authorities if there is such inefficiency. The present system is undoubtedly increasing that trouble. There is no doubt that by throwing the responsibility on the producer, on the farmer finally, the local market is congested with the diseased meat, and a medical man who understands what he is talking about, must understand that it is a very serious thing to the people of Canada. We can better afford to pay a percentage of the cost of this diseased meat when it is found at its final resting place where the animals are slaughtered much better than to have our people living on it and being injured. Those who are benefited should pay. The general public are benefited, and, therefore, the general public should pay the cost. I will not say that they should pay the whole cost, because that might lead to irregularities, Jnit we should certainly pay a percentage of the cost, and it should be paid to those who slaughter the animals. We know it is almost impossible when a steer or fat beast is leaving the farm to know what diseases it may have. When the animal comes io be slaughtered, the defects will be disclosed, and I quite approve of what the minister is doing. His course, however, is having results that he evidently did not intend. I think the chief source of difficulty lies in not paying a percentage on the discarded meat.