John Patrick MOLLOY

MOLLOY, The Hon. John Patrick, M.D.V., V.S.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Provencher (Manitoba)
Birth Date
March 13, 1873
Deceased Date
March 16, 1948
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Patrick_Molloy
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=a33ce87d-0860-4816-885e-070b32a2126e&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, veterinary surgeon

Parliamentary Career

October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Provencher (Manitoba)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Provencher (Manitoba)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
L LIB
  Provencher (Manitoba)
October 6, 1925 - October 4, 1921
LIB
  Provencher (Manitoba)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 35 of 35)


March 15, 1909

Mr. MOLLOY.

No.

Topic:   $531,000,000 COMMONS
Full View Permalink

March 15, 1909

Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher).

I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Macdonald in criticising the qualifications of the present Minister of Agriculture. I believe and the people believe that he is the best and most competent Minister of Agriculture Canada has ever had. He is just as much a farmer as the hon. member who has just spoken, and a great deal more; I believe he pays more attention to the farming interest of this coun-tiy. I have heard it stated during the last campaign that the three previous Ministers of Agriculture were not aware that milk came from a cow.

Is it necessary that this appointment should be made at once? Did the member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) introduce this resolution because a constituent of his is looking for the appointment? Because he has canvassed members from the west for assistance to get that position. Perhaps it is. The hon. member says he is a political opponent, but in that case my information is not correct as I was informed before Mr. CAMPBELL.

this resolution was written that this gentleman is a supporter of the hon. member.

Topic:   $531,000,000 COMMONS
Full View Permalink

March 15, 1909

Mr. MOLLOY.

I am glad that the late hon. gentlemen who had a seat in this House and who was appointed to the Railway Commission, now that he is dead, received some credit from his political opponents. They say in the west that the dead Indian is the good Indian, and I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite think that the good Grit is the dead Grit.

I hope that this appointment will be made shortly, although there is nothing on record to show that the country is suffering. I believe that the present members of the commission are quite capable of handling the business that comes before them to the satisfaction of the country, and it is admitted by hon. gentlemen opposite that the work is being well done and in the interests of the country as a whole. I cannot accept or follow the advice given by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) that we should follow the example of the United States and entirely eliminate politics in such appointments. I hope, if it is necessary, as I believe it is, that the vacancy on the board will be filled as soon as possible and this government is quite well qualified to make that appointment at the proper time. I said I hoped it would go to the west because I am a western man. So far as I am concerned, I would have pretty nearly every appointment paid for by the people of Canada go to the west. Let them all go to the west, and I hope this one in particular will go to the west, and if a farmer is the best available man, let us have a farmer by all means. If the best available man is not a farmer, then we do not need a farmer and I hope one will not be appointed. The very fact of

appointing a farmer might be detrimental to the interests of farmers. A farmer might be appointed who would not be as well qualified to fill the position as the next man in line. Is that not true? Is there any guarantee that if this government does appoint a farmer he will be the best available man and will fill the position better than any one else? I do not think so. It does not necessarily follow. We hear particularly at election time, from some speakers and candidates in rural districts, the cry 'the farmer, the farmer, the farmer, I will do anything on earth for the farmer. It is just stage play, the greater part of it. Sometimes the Grits are guilty as well as the Tories. The greater part of it is in vote-catching, and I believe this resolution is intended as a vote-catcher, but I believe it will fail.

Topic:   $531,000,000 COMMONS
Full View Permalink

February 9, 1909

Mr. MOLLOY.

I, for one, would object to an increase in the compensation for gland-ered horses. The reason is that a glandered horse is not worth a single dollar. I have had some experience as an inspector and I would certainly object to any increase in compensation for a horse proven by the post-mortem to have been diseased. A glandered horse is not only valueless, but he is a source of danger and may cost the country an immense sum of money. I remember one band of bronchos brought into the county in which I live, and the result of their coming was that disease was spread over the whole county. Therefore,

I object to pay over $100 for that which is not worth a ten cent piece, and is a source of danger to the country. Is it not a fact that the Canadian government is paying larger compensation for animals that are slaughtered in this way than any other country in the world ? And why should horses be worth more in British Columbia than in Manitoba? The city of Winnineg boasts, and justly, that it has the finest horses of any city in Canada. Why people in British Columbia should expect more for their glandered horses than people in other provinces, I cannot understand. Besides, such a thing would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction. This is the first time I have learned that the department is paying/ for horses that are destroyed on suspicion. Horses are not destroyed on suspicion. The very fact that the government allows the owner of the horse to reserve the animal to be subjected to the mallein test for the third time, I think, is a wise provision. I have tested horses for the third time and have found that they reacted, but the second and third time the reaction is not so marked as the first time. Besides, a horse whose entire system is permeated with disease might not react at all. That is one case where you have

to go by the clinical symptoms. So far as increase in the compensation is concerned, 1 certainly object to any.

Topic:   E. R. CHAPMAN.
Full View Permalink

February 9, 1909

Mr. MOLLOY.

I do not feel at all bound to move that compensation be done away with. I am proud that the Canadian people pay so large compensation as they do. But I honestly think that $100 for a horse that is not worth a dollar is enough. True, the owner suffers the misfortune of the loss of the horse, or even the loss of a part of his herd. A man not having enough horses to do his work may purchase a horse not knowing that he is introducing disease into his herd. I do not think the innocent buyer should suffer. But when the country helps to bear the loss to the extent it does, I do not think there is any reason for increasing the compensation.

Topic:   E. R. CHAPMAN.
Full View Permalink