Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I feel disposed to keep my eye on the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) when I touch upon this somewhat delicate subject. However, we all appear to be in pretty good humour now, and possibly I can get the desired information to the committee and escape the danger point.

I may say that last year I was impressed with the idea that possibly there had been a miscarriage of justice somewhere

I mean in equity not in law; I think Mr. Alderson got all that was coming to him in law, but, as has been said, that sometimes that falls short of equity. At least I was understood to have said that. After the House prorogued last year I took some steps to investigate the matter further. In the meantime Mr. Alderson took the case to the courts, but not having a case in law he fell down; he did not, as he thought, get justice. My deputy sent to Toronto and got a copy of the evidence that was taken in the proceedings, reviewed it very thoroughly, and tried to get at the bottom of the matter. I had understood that there were certain strictures made by the judge with respect to certain witnesses, but if so they did not appear in the copy of the evidence we got. But I can see where Mr. Alderson fell down. He sought to prove there was no disease in his herds but unquestionably there was disease present; it could not be proven that it was attributable to other causes than uncooked garbage. I received a communication from Mr. Alderson after that asking me if he might have an opportunity of discussing the matter with me, and, as I naturally wished to see the gentleman over whom there had been so much discussion, I immediately made an engagement with him. He came down and we had a long talk, and I was very much impressed with Mr. Alderson's sincerity and

5S3

Su-pply-Health of Animals

truthfulness. I am confident that he felt that he was abused and that he was telling me a true story. So much so that I arranged for a conference in my office between Mr. Alderson, one , of his sons, and aneighbour, and three or four of my

staff, including the deputy, and myself. I suppose we were there for an hour and a half, or possibly two hours, going into this complex question, and endeavouring to secure a solution that would deal with the matter from the standpoint of equity. We thought we had secured a solution. I felt that if such a thing as compassionate compensation-shall I call it?-could be given to Mr. Alderson, that should be done. I felt in my heart that it should be done; but I am not a legal authority, and I was informed by the Auditor General, when this was attempted to be done, that under the law we could not pay compassionate compensation. The law is there for the purpose of compensating the owner of animals that have cholera. On the other hand, it was found that the bulk of the evidence went to show that, while cholera was present to a very restricted extent, a considerable number of animals had been slaughtered that were not diseased at all. That was the situation. Mr. Alderson slaughtered thirty-three head of animals, which under examination proved to be all right and fit for food. In view of that, the evidence seemed to indicate that a considerable number more had been slaughtered that would have proved to be all right if they had been salvaged. I think Mr. Alderson should have been allowed to salvage either the entire bunch or none at all. I was not in charge at the time; I do not know what the regulations were, and I have not gone into them intimately enough to know whether a mistake occurred or not. I think, however, the veterinary inspectors felt they went far enough when they allowed Alderson to salvage thirty-three. But having salvaged thirty-three, Mr. Alderson came to the conclusion that they had not cholera at all and that if the rest had been salvaged, he could have got the value of them on the market. There is, however, no question at all that cholera was present, and, further, Mr. Alderson could not prove that it had been contracted by any other means than by garbage. Therefore, on the cholera-affected animals, he was not entitled to any compensation, and the ruling of the department and the officers of the department is strictly and legally right.

As regards the animals that were slaughtered and salvaged, and that proved to be all right, there is presumptive evidence that if more had been salvaged, they would have proved

to have been fit for human consumption, and that is the place where I feel an injustice was done. Whether that was due to wrong regulations or to regulations not being carried out according to the instructions given, I do not know. All I know is that immediately I became familiar with the facts, instructions were given that, in future, owners of all herds of this nature must be allowed to salvage anything that did not show any clinical signs of disease. Then the post mortem, after the animals were slaughtered, would indicate whether or not they were fit for human food. That is the situation. If my hon. friend has any suggestions to make with regard to the matter, I should be glad to have them; I have made an attempt to meet the situation. The hon. member for South Oxford made such strong representations and came back so frequently in regard to this case, that I came to the conclusion that his action was not to make a noise, not mer^y to play the game or to indicate that he was active on behalf of the interests of his constituents, but because he believed in his heart that justice had fallen short somewhere. I will give the hon. gentleman credit for that, and it was for that reason that I pursued the investigation further. I then ran up against the stone wall of the Auditor General who, in effect, intimated that no such thing as compassionate compensation could be paid under the provisions of the law.

Mr. HARRIS:

Any one who knows anything about the workings of the department and particularly the Health of Animals branch knows that they are doing a great deal of good work. I appreciate the minister's statement that, in future, occurrences of this kind will be prevented. The injustice, however, already done to this particular party, who by the way is no constituent of mine, is not righted by taking care of some case which might happen in the future. At the present time this man is some seventy years of age, and he is destitute through the necessity of the department cleaning out his herd of swine and is not being able to receive compensation to a larger extent than he did to take care of his particular case. I would respectfully ask the minister if it is not possible for him to bring down in his supplementary estimates some measure of relief which will compensate in some small degree this man to whom a gross injustice has been done.

Mr. LEADER:

I cannot help but think the government has adopted a policy of passive defence in regard to this very important work of the eradication of tuberculosis from our cattle. The minister has made it

Supply-Health oj Animals

plain, I think, to everyone present that while the government are willing to accept applications that may be made, they will be unable to act upon them this year at least; in fact, they will not be able to take on new work in Manitoba except in this restricted area.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

That is for this current year.

Mr. LEADER:

Yes.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

That will soon be out.

Mr. LEADER:

The fact that the government will not be able to take on any new work is due not to lack of funds, but to the opinion of the minister that this work is not as important as other work. It will be remembered that the other night I protested against the increase of $200,000 in the appropriation for experimental farms, and I think my contention was sound in that regard. To-day I am going to suggest that the minister endeavour, in his fight with the rest of the Cabinet, to get more money for this particular work of the eradication of tuberculosis and to bring such further sum down in the Supplementary Estimates. I am particularly interested in this phase of agriculture; I know something about it. My herd was, perhaps, one of the very first in Canada to be accredited. I am going to be looked after, so I cannot be accused of looking at this matter from a selfish viewpoint. But my neighbour, who has not had the advantage of getting under this system, is going to be out in the cold for this next year at least. I think this work is so important, not only to the farming interests, but to the people who live in our cities, that every endeavour should be made, not just to stand pat, but to carry on an aggressive campaign against this disease. Last year, in speaking about this matter, I mentioned that glanders had been almost entirely eradicated from horses by the action of the government. As has been proved in the United States, if the same aggressive action is displayed as regards tuberculosis, the same results will be achieved. It will, however, never be achieved by the policy of passive defence that is taken at this time. The minister has paid me the compliment of stating that, in a moment of weakness, he agreed to raise the compensation last year. I hope that I have enough influence with him that he will feel obliged to insist in Council on $285,000 for the accredited herd system, the same as was asked for last year. I am going to suggest that he make a fight for that amount.

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

I should like to refer to the matter that the minister was

dealing with just a few moments ago. I appreciate very much the careful manner in which he has inquired into the case referred to, that of Alderson, who had some 245 hogs slaughtered under the Contagious Diseases Act. This man has received no compensation and as a result he has been practically ruined. He had a large experience in this particular business and it is to be assumed that he knew quite well what the consequence would be if cholera developed in his herd. The minister observed that the case had been taken into the courts and that the man had failed to establish his position. Mr. Alderson endeavoured to show that there was no disease in his herd; he staked everything on that issue. There was the alternative by which, if he could establish that the disease might have been introduced from some other source rather than from garbage feeding, he would have been entitled to compensation. But he said that he was satisfied in his own mind that there was no disease in his herd and that therefore he would undertake to establish his case on those grounds. The judge in his finding points out that the evidence of Mr. Alderson and three or four of his witnesses was absolutely in contradiction to that of the officers of the department; and he adds that he finds it necessary to accept the statements of those who. are experts in the diseases of animals rather than the testimony of the owner of the animals. And the owner not having tried to establish that the disease had been introduced from some other source than garbage feeding, there was no other recourse for the court than to disallow compensation. A post mortem was held on one small pig out of this herd of 245 animals. A few culls from different litters were put into a pen together and it was on one sickly-looking little pig that the post mortem was held. The man pleaded with the officers of the department to allow him to slaughter as many of the animals as he could and dispose of them for food. He was given permission to kill and dress what he could in one day and disposed of 33 of them in this way, every one of which was passed by the inspector. Now, it is remarkable that although the inspectors, on taking the temperature of six or eight of these hogs, declared the animals to be diseased, and to have a high temperature, yet when they were slaughtered no disease was discovered in them. I am not going to argue that there was no disease in the herd. The evidence of the officers has been accepted by the court, and the assumption is reasonable that some of these sickly runts among the culls that were in this pen would be most susceptible to disease if it was introduced

Supply-Health of Animals

from any outside source. And the returns show that some animals that had been taken to the place a few weeks previously for breeding purposes had died, though other animals that had been brought about the same time and taken away had not developed disease. The assumption, therefore, is that the disease might possibly have been introduced from this outside source, although Mr. Alderson might not be aware of its presence. The officers of the department might have found disease in one of these animals and concluded that it was necessary to slaughter the whole herd. The minister stated his conviction that many of these animals were fit for food; and that, Mr. Alderson having suffered a great injustice, he had taken steps to see that the regulations under the act should be amended so that an incident of this kind could not recur in the future. So that now where disease breaks out, if there are any animals that are free from it and are fit for food they will be salvaged and not be a total loss to the owner.

The man concerned happens to be a resident of the constituency that I represent. But I want to say right here that I interested myself in the matter not by reason of any political services he had rendered me, for he had been a staunch Liberal all his life, but because I had known him for many years and was convinced that he was upright and honourable. I am satisfied that when he went into court to endeavour -to prove that there was no disease in his herd he firmly believed that there was not; and I do not think that the officers of the department showed him the consideration to which he was entitled. He declared in evidence, which I think was corroborated by other witnesses, that he was assured by the inspector that he would receive two-thirds compensation for the animals slaughtered, that he would have his premises cleaned up, and that he would be enabled to go into business again. Far from that being the case, he finds himself now in the possession of property of very little value, for he has not since been able to utilise his pens for breeding purposes. In short, he is simply down and out. In view, therefore, of his sincerity and his loss which the minister admits, I think he is entitled to some consideration. And the fact that the minister even went so far as to recommend a compassionate allowance would indicate the justice of his claim. If the law as it stands precludes some compassionate allowance being made for a person injured in this way, I think that some steps should be taken to see that justice is done. We

talk about passing an old age pension law and other measures for the relief of the people, and it does seem very hard indeed that a man who is trying to earn an honest living should, by an incident of this kind, find himself absolutely deprived of his means of livelihood. I hope the minister will bring down something in the Supplementary Estimates to provide some measure of justice to this man. The very fact that every one of the 33 animals that were slaughtered and dressed was found by the department to be absolutely free from disease and fit for food goes to show that the disease was not general in the herd. The minister is convinced that an injustice has been done in the owner not being allowed to salvage the animals that were healthy. The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) stated that in 1910, 5.26 per cent of the animals inspected were infected with tuberculosis, as against 21.86 last year. It shows an alarming increase of disease in our hogs, and renders imperative that heroic remedies be resorted to for its eradication, otherwise we shall find ourselves without even sufficient hogs for domestic consumption. .

I am not going to deal with the accredited herd system. I know the minister is anxious that progress should be made in this matter. It is likely, as was indicated in the discussion the other night, that under the present regulations governing compensation some people may have taken advantage of the department. I suppose it is impossible to frame laws that will absolutely prevent all fraud. However, the case to which I have referred happened in the spring of 1920. Since that time the man aggrieved has been living in hopes that some compensation would be paid to him for the loss he sustained. Now, I would ask the minister to give this matter a little further consideration, and although the Audit department may not be prepared to pass any compensation payment under a strict interpretation of the act as it was, I hope that some means can be found to provide a remedy.

Mr. CALDWELL:

I would like to know how many accredited herds we have in New Brunswick and who the owners are; and the same information in respect to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

The total number of fully accredited herds, that is, those which have had two clean tests, is 374 in all the provinces; the number in process of being accredited is 1,069; the number of applications received is 181-or a total of 1,624. Taking each province the figures are: Prince Edward Island, fully accredited, 14; under

Supply-Health oj Animals

process, 29; not tested, 6; total 49. Nova Scotia, fully accredited, 8; under process, 6; not tested, 7; total 21. New Brunswick, fully accredited, none. My hon. friend does not seem to have taken advanatage of this system.

Mr. CALDWELL:

Are Harding Bros, not there?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

No. There are 14 under accreditation, but they have to get two full clean tests before they are recognized as fully accredited. The number not tested and waiting is 3. So my hon. friend has not got any very great grievance after all-only three on the waiting list. There are often more men waiting in a barber shop.

Mr. CALDWELL:

Mr. Chairman, I think

possibly the minister has lost the point that I made a short time ago. While I have often seen more than three men waiting in a barber shop, I do not think such a waiting list applies to the present case. I would call the minister's attention to the fact that we are simply beginning this line of farming in New Brunswick, which accounts for there being 14 herds under process. This indicates that what 1 am saying is absolutely correct. Due to the fact that this pamphlet has only been issued very recently-I did not get my copy until two months ago-very few of our people knew that this system was in operation. A good number of our farmers intend to apply for accreditation of their herds, and they will be very much disappointed when they find that their applications are deferred. Hope deferred maketh the heart sick, as the old saying is. Another point. Here are 14 herds under process of examination, and in due time they will be the only accredited herds for the whole province of New Brunswick. We have quite a large number of other breeders of pure bred cattle who will be absolutely unable to get their herds tested, and consequently they will not. be able to sell their stock, because our beginners are aware of the fact that tested stock is worth far more money than untested. Untested stock may be all right, but you can not sell it. I am raising some pure-bred stock, but I have not got them accredited yet. I was going to make application, but I shall not do so now, for I do not want to be on the waiting list when there is no barber to attend to me.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

The sooner you apply the sooner your turn will come.

Mr. CALDWELL:

The result will be that the 14 breeders who get their herds accredited will corner all the business in New Brunswick,

and no other breeder will be able to sell purebred stock in competition with them. My hon. friend for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) pointed this out, and as his herd is accredited we cannot impute to him any selfish motives. I have not a very big herd, but I know large numbers of breeders who have, and who would like to get their herds accredited. I have been doing some work along this line and I am very sorry, because having told the pure-bred stock breeders in my province that they could get their herds accredited, I now find myself in a false position.

Mr. BRETHEN:

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding this matter. I take it that there is no money at present to carry on this work for the current year, that is, until after the 31st March?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Except in Manitoba.. We are taking on new work there now.

Mr. BRETHEN:

In the restricted area?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Yes, and the retest, second, third or fourth, as the case may be. [DOT]

Mr. BRETHEN:

I quite agree with what the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) has said regarding the value of this work. I believe that this accredited herd system is the first and about the only stimulus to people who own herds of cattle to try and eradicate tuberculosis, and I believe that for every person who was interested in it at first there are at least a hundred now interested as a result of this compensation scheme. I should like to have an assurance from the hon. minister that the vote as it stands at present will look after the applications now on file and new applications to the extent it did last year.