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. MOLLOY.

I did not ask a question.

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

March 15, 1909

Mr. MOLLOY.

Whether he is a supporter or an opponent of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) makes no difference to this House or to the people of this country. I am surprised-and pleased to hear

Topic:   $531,000,000 COMMONS
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

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