1952-03-04

Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I beg leave to table the following diplomatic instruments, in English and in French:
Multilateral agreement:
I.L.O. convention (No. 88) concerning the organization of the employment service. Ratified by Canada on August 24, 1950. Bilateral agreements:
Ceylon - Exchange of notes (January 26 and April 24, 1951) constituting an agreement regarding the entry to Canada for permanent residence of citizens of Ceylon.
France - Exchange of notes (November 13 and December 8, 1951) constituting an agreement abrogating the agreement of March 22, 1946, concerning the release of certain private property from government control.
India - Exchange of notes (September 10, 1951) constituting an agreement giving formal effect to the statement of principles agreed between the government of Canada and the government of India for the co-operative economic development of India.
Pakistan:
(1)	Exchange of notes (September 10, 1951) giving formal effect to the statement of principles agreed between the two countries for the co-operative economic development of Pakistan.
(2)	Exchange of notes (October 23, 1951) between Canada and Pakistan constituting an agreement regarding the entry to Canada for permanent residence of citizens of Pakistan.
United Kingdom - Exchange of notes (July 27 and August 14, 1951) constituting an agreement extending to certain colonial territories the Canada - United Kingdom double taxation agreement of June 5, 1946.
United States:
(1)	Convention modifying and supplementing the convention and accompanying protocol of March 4, 1942 for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion in the case of income taxes. Signed June 12, 1950.
(2)	Convention modifying and supplementing the convention of June 8, 1944 for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion in the case of estate taxes and succession duties. Signed June 12, 1950.
Venezuela - Exchange of notes (October 10 and 11, 1951) constituting an agreement to renew the terms of the modus vivendi of October 11, 1950 for a further period of one year.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Has the government given its approval to the new pension plan for the Canadian National Railways? Would the minister say when the details of the new plan will be made public? Can he say further whether anything is being done to increase the basic pensions of those already retired?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: In reply to the first question, the government has given consideration to revised rules for pensions to employees of the Canadian National Railways, and sees no objection to the plan submitted by the officers of the company. This plan, I understand, will bring about a considerable betterment in the terms now in existence.
As to the second question, I understand the details of the plan will be announced within the next few days by the president of the Canadian National Railways.
The third question is:
Can he say further whether anything is being done to increase the basic pensions of those already retired?
The answer to that question is that the revised pension rules, as submitted to us for approval, do not contain any provision for retired employees. [DOT]
84	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Since it will be some days before the president of the Canadian National Railways makes an announcement as to policy respecting pensions for Canadian National employees, and since the minimum pension for those now retired is only $25 a month, would the minister make representations to the president that something be done to increase the present totally inadequate pension?


Lionel Chevrier: I believe I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that an announcement would be made in the course of the next few days, I hope tomorrow or the next day. The announcement will indicate what the position is under the revised plan.
With reference to the question which the hon. member asks, I believed it has always been clearly indicated in the house, both by myself and by others who have taken part in debate, that it was for the management of Canadian National Railways to determine whether or not they wished to make representations to us. They did, after careful study of the revised rules, make certain representations to us. If they care to make additional representations, we shall be glad to look at them when the opportunity arises.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of -the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I sent him notice earlier in the day? Has Toronto's serious unemployment problem received consideration by the government, and if so what relief does the government propose?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of the question. I should add that other members in the Toronto and greater Toronto area have brought this matter to my attention, both since the house opened and before it opened.
The situation in Toronto, as reported to me this morning, is showing definite evidence of improvement, which is indicated by a fall of 700 in the total number of applicants for jobs between February 21 and 28 last. The less buoyant situation in regard to the employment in Toronto and, indeed, in Ontario, has been receiving constant attention during the winter. While the seasonal dip has been much greater in this area during the past winter than in the immediately preceding winter, all the reports I have received indicate that the unemployment is to a very large
(Mr. Chevrier.]

degree seasonal, and I am confident that by early summer the demand will be for more workers.
Unemployment insurance regular benefits, plus supplementary allowances provided for two years ago by parliamentary action in amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, are alleviating the situation very greatly. During December, 1951, and January, 1952, the total insurance payments in the city of Toronto were $1,671,631.20. It is true that unemployment insurance benefits leave a problem for the city in caring for those who could not accept work if work were available, and a comparatively small number who are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits for several reasons, including (1) having been paid all benefits to which they are entitled; (2) benefits not yet being due; (3) cases where the amount paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act is insufficient to meet the needs of the family.
I am happy to say that in Toronto the number in this fringe class has shown a considerable reduction in February as compared with January, the figures given me this morning by representatives of the city of Toronto being 295 families in February as compared with 517 families in January.
This morning my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) and I had a very helpful discussion with representatives from Toronto and Hamilton on this problem. Those attending on behalf of Toronto were Controller David Balfour, Controller Ford Brand; from Hamilton, Mayor Lloyd Jackson, Controller Samuel Lawrence and Controller H. Arnott Hicks.
Throughout the discussion both delegations expressed the belief that the unemployment insurance commission could, under its existing powers, do more to cope with the present situation than it is now doing. I therefore asked that a member of the commission go to these two cities to hold such hearings or investigations as are necessary to ensure that maximum benefits are being derived under the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations, and to report thereon. This the commission has agreed to do at a very early date.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister indicate what policy, if any, the government has worked out to provide for one particular class he has not yet mentioned, namely, the unemployed who flock into a metropolis like Toronto, who are not normally resident therein and who naturally make claims upon the city for support during their period of unemployment?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Has the
Minister of National Revenue been advised that the income tax office in Saskatchewan has rejected, as a deduction from income, annual fees paid by farmers to the Saskatchewan Farmers Union? Can the minister say whether such fees will be allowed as a deduction from income in the manner outlined by the Minister of Finance on June 13 last?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I acknowledge having received
notice yesterday of the hon. member's question. The answer to the first question is yes, in a few instances because of a misunderstanding arising from the word "Union" in the name of the organization. The organization is the Saskatchewan Farmers Union.
The answer to the second question is yes. As indicated by the Minister of Finance on pages 4051 and 4052 of Hansard for June 13, 1951, membership fees may be included in the expenses of a farmer who is in business for himself. They are not deductible from the income of a farm employee because the organization is not a trade union as defined in the Income Tax Act.



QUESTION AS TO RETURNING TO CAR ORDER BOOK SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce look into the advisability of returning to the car order book system for the shipment of grain, and if he does not find it feasible will he make a statement to the house as to why it is not feasible, and why it was prohibited last December?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be glad to do so at an early date.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister prepared to immediately notify farmers in the area of Dundurn military camp, upon whose land the government has an option, as to whether or not their land is to be expropriated?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I expect that those options will be taken up within the next few weeks, and that, in cases where it is desired, arrangements can be made under which the government will not enter into possession of the land until the end of the crop year 1952.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is the minister aware that those farmers need some cash payment now if they are to secure other land upon which to move so that they can prepare the land for spring work? Is he aware that in the case of at least one man there is a request for an answer in this regard, and no answer has been given?


Brooke Claxton: I did not know of any such requests that had not been answered. I shall see that answers are sent at once.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sorry that I was unable to send him notice of it, but I am sure that he will not need it. Can the Prime Minister say what progress is being made by the royal commission inquiring into the development of the South Saskatchewan river and whether the report of that royal commission may be expected before the construction season opens this year?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: It just so happens that I received only this morning a letter, which is in the form of a preliminary report, from Mr. Gaherty, one of the commissioners. I shall be glad to table that letter so that it may be available for the information of hon. members.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Will the minister state what has been done in connection with the matter of the fifty-six diesel engines that were ordered in Britain, and as to which, upon delivery in Canada, sand was found in the oil.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I received notice

Inquiries of the Ministry somehow that this question was about to be asked, and I have an answer here. It is as follows:
Canadian General Electric Company, who hold a prime contract with the Canadian government, have advised us that fifteen diesel generator sets obtained from their subcontractor, Mechron Engineering Products, Ottawa, from Lister Diesel Company of the United Kingdom, were found to contain abrasive material in -the oil sump. It has been established that this material was placed in the engines while the units were in England. These fifteen diesel engines are being replaced by the United Kingdom company as quickly as possible, and the Canadian General Electric advise us that the replacement engines are now being received and the progress of their defence contract will therefore not be affected.
I may say that all fifteen were sent back to England, and that seven engines without defect have now been received. Others are in transit.



CABOT STRAIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he able to tell us whether any contract has yet been let for the construction of the ferry steamer to cross Cabot strait, and whether any change has been made in the design which we were told about some time ago?


Lionel Chevrier: The contract has been given to
Canadian Vickers Limited of Montreal. I am not aware of any radical change in the design of the ship.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Joseph Browne: I asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries a few days ago with regard to the Atlantic seal fishery.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: On Friday last the hon. member for St. John's West asked me a question with regard to the opening date for the killing of seals in the 1952 Atlantic seal fishery.
An interim agreement has been reached with Norway as to the opening dates. The

dates are March 5 for the gulf of St. Lawrence, and March 10 for the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, commonly known in the trade as the "Front".
We hope to hold discussions later on this year with the Norwegian government and other interested countries to see whether a formal continuing agreement on conservation measures for the seal herds can be reached.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Can the minister say whether the bill to amend the annuities act, which was introduced at the last session but not proceeded with, will be reintroduced at this session?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As my hon. friend knows, when we left here just before New Year's eve we had not reached the point on the order paper where we could deal with the annuities act; consequently that was the end of that particular bill. Since that time, further information has been received -and it is being carefully studied. If as a result of that study the government decides to bring in a new bill, the house will be notified in due course.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it was agreed last evening that we would proceed today with the business which we had been dealing with up to the time of adjournment. I would therefore suggest that that course be adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 3, consideration in committee of the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease and to provide in connection therewith for the payment of compensation, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, to the owners of animals slaughtered, and also in respect of any buildings, fodder, grain or other things ordered to be destroyed.
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to ask the leader of the opposition whether he wishes to proceed further with the remarks he was making last evening, or

whether, before he proceeds, he wishes me to answer some of the questions that were asked last evening.


Mr. Drew:: In view of the fact that there were a number of questions and that the Minister of Agriculture has had the opportunity to check some of the details with his department, I think it may be best if he deals with those questions; then any remarks I might have to make could follow. It may well be that some of the answers he now has will deal with the very point that 1 proposed to raise.


James Garfield Gardiner: First, in order to give the house the complete record, as nearly as it is possible to do so, of what has happened up to date in connection with either foot-and-mouth disease or any other disease which may have been checked in the area, I should like to read this into the record.
Mr. Waas, of McLean, on or about November 26, called Dr. Richards of Indian Head, who prescribed for vesicular stomatitis. Dr. Hunter of Regina was called by Mr. Waas and agreed that it was vesicular stomatitis and continued the treatment. Then Mr. Waas reported to provincial veterinarian Dr. Johnson a day or so later, who agreed it was stomatitis.
Information was given by Dr. Johnson to Dr. Christie, who is in charge of our branch at Regina, on December 1. On December 2, Dr. James went out, on instructions from Dr. Christie, to investigate, and he carried on part of the check which was indicated to the house yesterday as the proper procedure in such cases. In other words, he injected some of the material into the tongue of a horse, and vesicular stomatitis developed as a result of that injection. I understand that this is taken by veterinarians to indicate that it was vesicular stomatitis and not foot-and-mouth disease. Then he examined the animals and pronounced it stomatitis. He reported his findings to Dr. Christie, and was sent cut the next day to quarantine the place; that is, he was there and made the examinations on December 2 and quarantined the place on December 3.
Dr. James then examined herds in the surrounding area and did not find any traces of the disease at that time. Dr. James reported the same disease in Smith's herd on December 7. Smith was a neighbour of Mr. Waas who assisted Mr. Waas in treating his stock. The disease appeared in the herd of Mr. Wood on December 12. Mr. Wood was another neighbour who assisted Mr. Waas in treating his stock.
Dr. James again covered the surrounding herds and found nothing further. Later in
Foot-and-mouth disease December a herd was found north and west toward Lumsden and in the vicinity of Was-cana creek-


Mr. Coldwell:: What was the date?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact date, but it was within, a few days of that time. As to the farms at McLean-that is the farms of Mr. Wood, Mr. Smith and Mr. Waas-the farm of Mr. Waas was cleared on December 8. It was found there was no further indication of the disease on December 8 and his farm was cleared. The farm of Mr. Wood was cleared on December 27, and that of Mr. Smith on December 27-[DOT]both the same day. This same disease appeared in the Bums feed lot in the latter part of December, and the feed lot was quarantined on December 28 for stomatitis. Nothing was allowed to go out of the yard until the quarantine was lifted on January 17. Any animals which did go out of the Burns yards within a reasonable time were traced and evidence secured that none of them turned out to be carriers.
Dr. Childs was out in Regina speaking to the livestock association on January 17. He discussed with our officials the matter of the disease which had been prevalent. He was at the livestock association annual meeting for the purpose of discussing certain diseases in horses, and Newcastle disease. He was not approached at the meeting by anyone who represented that foot-and-mouth disease existed in that area. He did, however, discuss the question of the investigations that had been made into stomatitis, and satisfied himself that it was not other than as it had been diagnosed.
On February 13 our branch at Regina reported through Dr. Hall-who, I may say, is assistant to Dr. Childs, and1 was in charge while Dr. Childs was away, first in order to attend this meeting at Regina, and later to take his usual statutory vacation-that the disease was taking on a more serious appearance. Samples of material were collected and sent to Hull, to Dr. Mitchell, on February 14, arriving here on the 16th. On the 16th Dr. Childs returned. On or about the 16th the samples were used on horses, cattle and swine, as suggested.
By February 18, indications were that the disease might be foot-and-mouth disease. I would say that on the 18th checks were made on cattle, swine and horses in Regina under the direction of Dr. Childs, and the report later was that there was no reaction to those injections.
I should have said that Dr. Childs left here on the 16th and flew to Regina, and was in Regina on the 17th. That is the occasion on which he went to Regina officially to deal

Foot-and-mouth disease with this matter. He put in that day and until Wednesday night in the area. He spent Sunday in consultation with Drs. Christie and Carlson. This convinced him there was a serious condition. He quarantined six municipalities on Monday, February 18. This was increased to ten by Wednesday, when the quarantine was confirmed by order in council at Ottawa. The quarantine was actually in effect on Monday. The Burns plant was closed under orders on February 19. In short, I think it will be apparent that there were seven days between the time it was reported that the disease was taking on a more serious turn and the time it was established as foot-and-mouth disease.
I think I should say-although it is not in this record; I had it over the phone and otherwise just before coming to the house-that the material upon which there was proof of foot-and-mouth disease in the area was taken from three animals, I think it was, in the Burns plant. That is, these materials were not taken elsewhere. The evidence with regard to the other cases would indicate that it may have been stomatitis that was on these different farms that I am going to refer to in a moment; or there is a possibility that on some of them it may have been foot-and-mouth disease, but there is no absolute proof with regard to that.
The material taken in order to have the tests made at Ottawa was taken from three animals, perhaps I should not say in the Bums plant, but in the Burns feed lot, where animals remain for some time and are fed before they are slaughtered. I understand these animals were from among those, and the tests were made, and they were found to be suffering from some disease. The samples were taken there, and the tests were made in Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: Where did these three animals come from?


Major James William Coldwell: Where had these animals originated?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been trying to find out today where these animals originated, but up to the time I came to the house I was not certain of that; therefore I do not want to make any suggestion that they came from any particular person's farm. My main objective in making the inquiries I made was to see whether or not they could be traced back to those original farms. But so far as I have been able to trace them up to the moment I have not been able to find that they were from those farms.


Mr. Tustin:: Were there any further outbreaks on the farms that were cleared in the check?


James Garfield Gardiner: These three farms are still clear; they have not had the disease.


George James Tustin: There has been no further outbreak?


James Garfield Gardiner: The other question that hon. members asked late in the evening had to do with the names of the farms on which stock had been checked and found to have had one or other of the diseases. There was Leonard T. Waas at McLean. I do not know whether the committee wants me to read all the numbers of their cattle. If it is desired to place the figures on the record, that will be quite all right.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it necessary to put these names on the record at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: They asked for them last night, and I agreed to produce them; but if the committee does not require them, that is all right, because I have reasons for feeling that probably it is just as well not to put them on.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Were any of the stock shipped out alive from the Burns plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any stock that was shipped out, as I said in my statement, was checked through to its destination.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not believe the names of farmers should be placed on the record if it is possible to keep them off. But I should like to know where the stock went that was shipped out alive.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was all checked through to its destination, wherever that destination was.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Can I get that information?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but you cannot get the information from me at the moment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We have a big staff of officials.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all right, but I am not sure that they can give it to the hon. member.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They should be able to give it.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they should not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, they should.


James Garfield Gardiner: The assurance is that they were traced right through to wherever they

did go, and it was shown that there is no evidence to indicate that they carried the disease.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Can I get the information as to where they were shipped?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, in due course.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We had enough trouble with margarine. We do not want to have those cattle shipped out there.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the committee satisfied that the names be not put on the record?


Major James William Coldwell: Let the document be tabled.


James Garfield Gardiner: After we are through with it here, yes.
I believe I have given most of the information asked for last night, if not all of it. If there are any other inquiries, I would say that I have with me my three officials who are closest to the whole matter, and they will be able to give me answers to any questions which may be asked in this connection.


Mr. Graydon:: Were precautions taken to find out exactly from what farms those three cattle came to the Burns feed lot?


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that there were about eighty animals in this feed lot. It would require very close examination of all the records back for a number of weeks, and possibly extending into months. I think hon. members understand what a feed lot is, associated with a packing plant. The animals are brought in, but some of them are not fit for slaughter. They are fed and brought to the point where they can be slaughtered. Sometimes it takes weeks, and sometimes it may run into a couple of months. However, it was three of those animals. Up to the present time I am not in a position, and neither is any other person, to state exactly where those three animals came from. An effort has been made to trace them.
That information, if it were available at all, would be with the Burns company. Up to date that company has not been able to give us that information. We have been in telephone communication with them today a number of times.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask why some move was not made before today to find out from the Burns company exactly where those cattle came from?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure that hon. members who deliver stock either to stockyards or packing houses will agree when I say that these animals may have been delivered direct to Bums. That is, a trucker may have brought them in and sold them to the Burns
Foot-and-mouth disease company. On the other hand they may have gone to the stockyards first and may then have been delivered from the stockyards to the Burns plant. I do not know that. At least they say themselves that they have no record by which they can trace the cattle definitely to a particular farm. They might, if given time to do it, be able to check back through truckers and others who brought animals in so as to find out where the animals came from. Until now however they have not been able to do so, although we have been attempting to get that information.


John George Diefenbaker: Were any of those cattle shipped as live cattle from the Burns yard after the quarantine was lifted? My information is that such is the fact. I could even tell the minister where I received information that shipments were made. Surely if the minister cannot identify those three animals, or the place from which they came, it should be possible to say whether or not live cattle were shipped from this yard to any part of eastern Canada or the United States following the lifting of the first temporary quarantine.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told there were only two animals shipped out between the time of the one quarantine and the other quarantine. Of course there were no animals shipped out during the period of that quarantine.


John George Diefenbaker: But after?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no "after" so far as the second one is concerned. They are still under quarantine. But in between the two periods of quarantine there were two animals. Those two animals have been traced to their destination, and have created no difficulty.


John George Diefenbaker: Where did those two animals go? That is the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be more reasons why that should not be stated than there are for not giving the names of the farmers who brought them in. There are people who have herds who would not want that information given out.


Gordon Graydon: Can it be given privately?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Can I have that information in private?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I do not know about that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think we are entitled to know, either publicly or privately.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think any member is entitled to the information, provided he agrees to follow the same practice I am following, namely, that it shall not be published or broadcast.

Foot-and-mouth disease


George Alexander Cruickshank: I give my absolute guarantee of that-that is, provided it did not go into the Fraser valley.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand now that this is not as serious a matter as I thought it might be. I can give the information now. The two animals went to the feed lot in Moose Jaw, and they have since been killed.


Mr. Harkness:: When the minister speaks about two animals, does he mean the two animals which were infected, or does he mean that only two animals were shipped out of the yard during the period of the quarantine?


James Garfield Gardiner: Two altogether. Only two were shipped out in that period.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No other cattle at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Gordon Graydon: Business must have been poor.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not necessarily.


Mr. Aylesworth:: Mr. Chairman, it is a very easy matter to trace these cattle back to the point from which they came originally.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: Well, maybe you know more about it than anybody else. We know perfectly well that in connection with cattle coming in to a packing plant, whether taken in by truck or in some other way-perhaps sent in by the farmer, direct-a record is kept as to what the cattle weighed, the price per hundred pounds live weight, and it is figured out at the price per hundred pounds dressed weight, as it affects each individual. That is so, whether there is only one or whether there are fifty in the group purchased from a farmer or through a drover or a trucker. It is an easy matter for Burns or anybody else to trace back and to ascertain exactly where these cattle came from.
Then we have the statement from the minister that only two have been shipped out from the feed lot. Certainly those cattle were put in there. We want to know where they came from, and whether it was a trucker, or whether they were sent in by car or sent direct by the farmer.
I am certain anyone who understands the business in any degree knows that these cattle can be traced back to the point from which they came. Many times I have known of cattle that have been shipped in and have turned out to have something wrong with them. I have had district veterinarians come to me or write to me, sometimes as long as a month afterwards, for information concerning the farmers from whom the animals were purchased. This has always been done.

I am sure there is no difficulty at all in that connection; and if the officials in the department are attempting to lead us to believe that it cannot be done, they are absolutely wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am prepared to agree that my hon. friend knows as much about this business as anyone else in the house. He is familiar with how it is done. As I have not been doing the same thing, naturally I am not as familiar with that operation as the hon. member. Nevertheless, I have sent stock to the Bums plant. I want to say that right up to a point everything that has been said is true. That is, you can follow these cattle right up to a certain place, but they tell us in the Burns plant-and after all, they are the people who got the cattle-that they cannot tell us where these animals came from.


Gordon Graydon: Do you take this as final?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have had to accept it up to now, but we are still working on the job. Up until now they have told us that they cannot tell, and they told us that no later than a few minutes ago. I cannot give the committee any information which I cannot obtain from them. These animals were delivered! with all the information available that has just been indicated, and so far as our records are concerned we can trace them up to that point ourselves. But there would be eighty cattle milling around in the yard without being tagged. Someone might want to do something about two of them. Their intention was not to let those cattle go out of the yard; their intention was to feed them up to a certain point and then slaughter them. They did not intend to distribute them all over the country. Occasionally one was taken out and shipped, but the records indicate that there were only two during the period from the one quarantine to the other. As to the three on which we took checks, up until now they have not been able to give us any information as to where they came from. That is not because they do not want to give it; it is because they have not been able to do so. I am sure they will be working on the job of supplying it, and we will get it as soon as possible.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: Is there not a good reason why the Burns people may hesitate to state definitely? We had a statement yesterday by the minister that the Bums plant may be totally destroyed. It strikes me as being reasonably clear that there might be a good reason why they are not able to trace these or give all the information that is required.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were not able to give it even before I said that.


John James Smith: I should
like to clear up this point of delivering cattle to the stockyards or packing plant. I have delivered cattle by truck, and there have been times when I did not have a full truckload. I went and bought and paid for cattle and delivered them to the union stockyards and got paid for them in my own name. Today the union stockyards in St. Boniface would have no record of those particular cattle unless I am willing to give it. Otherwise they would have to have the R. C. M. P. force me to give the names of the people from whom I purchased those cattle. It is a lot of nonsense to say that they have a record and ought to be able to give the name of the farmer from which this stock came.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: The hon. member may know about taking in a truckload of stock, but what I said was that they would have a record of that truckload of animals from the hon. member or someone else, and they could trace it back. Surely they would be able to state whether they got half a dozen head of cattle from anyone, and the hon. member would be able to tell where they had come from.


John James Smith: But they could not trace it back to the farm, from the stockyards.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: If the hon. member would listen to what I said, he would know that I did not say that.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Apparently we cannot find out from the company where these cattle came from. Can the minister state whether these three farmers whose names he mentioned shipped cattle to the Burns company in Regina between November 26 and December 28 when the quarantine was in effect on the Burns plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: The records indicate that on November 23, 1951, five veal calves were shipped by Mr. Waas to Burns and Company in Regina. I would assume that those calves would be killed. In any event they were not in the yard.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Were those the only cattle shipped in, or were others shipped in later? It does not follow that only these three farmers had cattle that were affected.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the argument I was putting up last night. I suggested at the same time that I did not have definite information to prove it, but the records do not
Foot-and-mouth disease show that animals came off that farm after it was established that there was any kind of disease there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Did the minister not say that on December 17 they came from the Waas farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What was it the minister said-that those five animals came from the Waas farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: I said prior to November 26. I thought it was some days before, but it was November 23, just three days before.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, when the minister says that it is impossible to get this information, that is not the fact. The government have the power to ask for the production of these documents and to trace it down. The apparent apathy with which they have endeavoured to trace this matter indicates that the apathetic attitude of the government still continues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. Surely with a question such as this before the Department of Agriculture they should not be playing around. They should find out where these animals came from. If Burns and Company are not co-operating, then surely, in the interests of an industry which is being challenged and threatened, this government should step in and trace this matter. You have the mounted police, and you have many other governmental agencies under your control. This is a matter which requires action, but apparently the same old practice of postponement and procrastination still characterizes the government.
I cannot put the information I have against that of the minister, because he has his officials before him, but my information is that cattle were shipped out of this yard, after the first temporary quarantine was lifted, to various parts of Canada, and even beyond. The minister says that only two cattle were shipped out of there, but will he say what happened or what disposal was made of the other seventy-eight head of cattle which were in this particular yard? The minister mentioned that only two had gone to Moose Jaw. What happened to the other seventy-eight?
This is a matter that deserves to be followed up to the limit. Certainly all those animals must be traced, otherwise the fear of this disease breaking out elsewhere will be intensified and necessary measures will

Foot-and-mouth disease not have been taken. Surely with all his officials the minister can state what happened to the eighty head in that stockyard. Where did they go? When were they slaughtered? Where did they come from?
The minister says that he cannot furnish that information. Surely, if the government really wanted the information, one of these officials could have gone into the Burns plant and looked at their records.
Today the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, speaking from his experience over the years as one of the largest drovers in Canada, tells us that he knows of no reason why the information would not be available. Yesterday the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, speaking with the authority of an experienced veterinarian, and who occupied the position of vice-president of the veterinarians of Canada, told us the procedure that should be followed in such cases. We are told by these experienced men that this disease can be traced; and certainly the arguments they advance seem to be in accord with reason and responsibility. I would like to know what happened to these animals.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is simple. They were shot by the mounted police and buried in a hole in the ground, seventy-four of them.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister when they were shot?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last Sunday, as nearly as we can make out from the records.


Major James William Coldwell: So for some weeks after the disease was discovered in the Burns plant those animals were on the lot?


James Garfield Gardiner: The disease was actually proven to have been discovered in the yard on Saturday and Sunday, a week ago, so it would be one week from the time the disease was discovered there until the animals were destroyed. No animals were destroyed until the day before these were shot. These animals were destroyed on the second day, if not on the first, and I am giving the second day as the last day.


Major James William Coldwell: No animals that were
shipped out had been in contact with those animals in the meantime?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


Major James William Coldwell: This is what puzzles me. I understand that the symptoms of this disease are similar to those of stomatitis, and I would like to know why the tests were not made earlier to find out if this was something much


more serious than it was generally believed to be, no matter what may have been the opinion of the various veterinarians. Dr. Christie was brought into this thing on behalf of the federal health of animals branch on December 1; and with these outbreaks occurring every once in a while, according to the record the minister read to the house a short time ago, what was the reason for the delay in making the tests to see whether this was really the disease they said it was or something much more serious, which this disease resembles? Why were the chances taken? That is what I am puzzled about. I know it is no good crying over spilled milk. The thing is done and we are faced with this problem. I hope that the disease will be stamped out, but it does seem to me there has been negligence somewhere; and when the opportunity arises in the agriculture committee we should make the most careful inquiry into all the circumstances and particularly as to why, in view of the likeness of the originally diagnosed disease to the much more serious disease, tests were not made weeks before that was done.


James Garfield Gardiner: Two horses were inoculated on the premises of Leonard T. Waas on December 3, 1951. That is as early as it could have been done, because we were only informed of the disease by the province on December 1. On December 2 our man went out and examined the animals and was told by other veterinarians that it was stomatitis. He then made the usual sort of check described here yesterday, by injecting the material into the tongues of two horses. These horses were visited and examined on December 4, 5 and 6, and no reaction was found. They were examined again on December 8, 1951, by Dr. N. B. James, who reported the horses showing symptoms of stomatitis. That, as I understand from the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, is the usual procedure, and would indicate that that was really the disease. Then one horse was inoculated on the premises of Mr. K. Haun, Regina, on February 17, by Dr. N. B. James. This horse was examined daily by Dr. James but did not develop any lesions. Then on February 18 two young cattle and two pigs were inoculated with material obtained from cattle of an infected herd. These animals failed to react.


Mr. Charlton:: What date was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: February 18. These were the three cases in which action was taken, and each verified the opinion expressed by veterinarians in the area that this was not foot-and-mouth disease.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is gratifying that so many hon. members found so much joy and happiness in the fact that eighty cattle were shot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if many members of this house really appreciate the seriousness of this situation. Because of a smart answer to a legitimate question half the members on the government side laugh about it. Well, the minister appears to have obtained a great deal of information in the last twelve hours. If he had given us this information at the beginning probably he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. The minister suggests that according to me the proper procedure was followed when two horses were inoculated. I said nothing of the kind. I said the proper procedure was to inoculate a horse, a cow, a guinea pig and a pig, not just one or two horses. Now we find that no animals were inoculated other than two horses until February 16.


James Garfield Gardiner: February 17, at Hull.


John Alpheus Charlton: No, the 16th. The proper number of animals were not inoculated until the 16th.


James Garfield Gardiner: But locally.


John Alpheus Charlton: The animals inoculated locally were not done until the 17th. There was nothing definite to report on them. I understand that a pig and a cow, or a calf and a pig were done, but a horse was not inoculated at the same time. It does practically no good to inoculate only a pig and a calf from the one batch of material. The idea is to inoculate all four animals at the same time and from the same material, so you can get a proper result.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just give this information for the benefit of the hon. member and in order to get the record straight, though perhaps this is not good enough. Material from the same source was used on February 17 for the horse and on February 18 for the young cattle and pigs, and that was considered to follow the usual practice.


John Alpheus Charlton: We did not know until now that a horse was inoculated on February 18.


James Garfield Gardiner: February 17.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not hear that before.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was a horse on the premises of Mr. K. Haun. I stated that a few moments ago.


John Alpheus Charlton: And the same material was used on the 18th for the pig and calf?
Foot-and-mouth disease


James Garfield Gardiner: Material from the same source.


John Alpheus Charlton: And the minister said there were no results from those tests.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yet I understand that only two horses were inoculated. No calves or pigs were inoculated on December 2nd or 3rd?


James Garfield Gardiner: December 3rd.


John Alpheus Charlton: They both showed signs of this disease, but none of the other animals were inoculated at that time. We have had no evidence even yet, Mr. Chairman, to show that gross negligence has not existed in the detection of this dread disease that is so vital to the livestock industry of this country, and which will in turn affect every Canadian citizen.
The events as we have had them given to us were that on November 26 a suspicious disease condition in cattle was reported to a private veterinarian. On December 2, two dominion government veterinarians visited the farm and placed it under at least partial quarantine. We are told that on December 3, two horses were inoculated. Obviously those two government veterinarians placed that farm under quarantine because they were suspicious of some other disease. On December 7 the Ottawa office was notified of this disease, but it was not until January 15 that the veterinary director general visited the area. According to the minister's report of yesterday he was suspicious of foot-and-mouth disease being present at the Bums packing plant or Burns feed lot.
The minister says that only two animals have gone out of that yard and that approximately 78 were shot. As I understand it, they were not shot until March 2, and were kept at the Burns yard from January 17 until March 2. The first full inoculation procedure took place on February 16 at the animal diseases research institute in Hull. May I ask who arranged for that material to be sent down to Hull? Obviously the veterinary director general had changed his mind sufficiently to leave Ottawa for that infected area, and peculiarly enough on the same day these animals were injected. He issued quarantine instructions on February 17, although the results of the animal inoculation in Hull were not available until February 24.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that something is wrong. Why did the veterinary director general not leave until the 16th, the

Foot-and-mouth disease day those animals were inoculated at Hull? Why did he proceed with quarantine the very next day on his arrival at the area? Was it because he was afraid that there might be foot-and-mouth disease in the area or was he satisfied in his own mind that it was already there? Whether we like it or not the competence of those now responsible for the services providing protection against such a calamity is undoubtedly in question.


Mr. Sinnoii:: From what are you reading?


John Alpheus Charlton: From my notes, and you did not write them. This disease must be eradicated, and the people of this country must be assured beyond any doubt of the competence of those charged with this responsibility. An error in diagnosis in the primary stages of the disease might be excusable, but there is nothing evident to justify the time element that has elapsed in this case. So long as even a suspicion existed that this could be foot-and-mouth disease, it was the responsibility of the head of the health of animals branch to ascertain positively, and at the earliest possible moment, whether it was or was not this dreaded disease. No barrage of excuses such as we witnessed from the minister yesterday can becloud the gross negligence and incompetence in this case.


Mr. Quelch:: I should like to ask the minister for an explanation of the government's policy regarding the slaughtering of these animals. If I understood! him correctly many of these cattle are being slaughtered today and, so far as the government knows, they have not foot-and-mouth disease but have been exposed in one way or another to the disease. I take it I am right thus far. If that is the case, the cattle have a clear bill of health and, so far as the government knows, show no signs of having the disease. Why could these cattle not be segregated and placed under a very rigorous quarantine within the greater quarantine area, held there for three months, and if they are still given a clear bill of health surely there will be no need to slaughter them.
What is the policy in regard to the importation into Canada of cattle from countries where foot-and mouth disease is prevalent? For example, in England foot-and-mouth disease has been present for a long time. I have some personal knowledge of this. Supposing a person buys cattle in England, and between the time he buys those cattle and has them shipped into quarantine in Scotland foot-and-mouth disease breaks out near by. What happens? Those cattle are quarantined within that district for a period of three months!. If at the end of three months they

can be given a clean bill of health, then they are exported to Scotland where they are quarantined for another three months. If at the end of that time they still do not have foot-and-mouth disease, they are shipped to Canada. Upon arrival in Canada, they are again placed in quarantine for another three months. At the end of that three months they are tested and, if they are still clear of the disease, they are shipped to the farmer.
Why cannot some similar procedure be adopted in this case? If tests show these cattle to be free of foot-and-mouth disease today but they have been exposed to infection, why could they not be segregated and placed under rigorous quarantine within the greater quarantine area? If these cattle were all common beef cattle, perhaps I would not raise the point; but I understand many of these cattle are valuable. You cannot compute their value in dollars. They represent generations of work in breeding stock. It seems to me we are today slaughtering cattle that have not got foot-and-mouth disease but may have been exposed to it. I would have thought it would have been possible to impose a rigorous quarantine and save some of those animals.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there should be any difficulty about answering that question. What my hon. friend has described is exactly the precautions we have taken with regard to all the area outside the quarantined area, plus the buffer area. The only place we are killing animals at all in Canada is inside an area that is just fifty miles square or approximately so. We are not killing any animals anywhere else.


Victor Quelch: Even though they may have foot-and-mouth disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are not any that have foot-and-mouth disease that we know of. Therefore there are not any animals being killed anywhere else but there.


Victor Quelch: Even though there are animals that have foot-and-mouth disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are not any such
animals as far as we know.


Victor Quelch: Why are you killing them
then?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not killing them. The only place we are killing animals is inside the quarantined area, and that is just an area around Regina extending about twenty-five miles in each direction. That is the area where the animals are being killed.


Mr. Rowe:: Are you going to kill them all?


James Garfield Gardiner: Then we add another thirty miles approximately on the average, fifty

miles from the nearest cases where animals have had the disease, and we call that a buffer area; and we say we will not ship those animals to anybody to be further fed and so on, or even ship them into other areas, except to get them to a plant where they can be immediately slaughtered. That is exactly what is done over in Scotland and elsewhere.


Victor Quelch: Yes, but you are talking about cattle within the quarantined area. You say that as far as you know those cattle outside of the quarantined area have not got foot-and-mouth disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will come back to that
matter in a minute. Let us get this other one clear. That means that all of western Canada, so far as anybody knows, is absolutely clear of foot-and-mouth disease at this moment except this area that is fifty miles square just around Regina.
To come back to my hon. friend's question, we have not done anything to prevent animals from being shipped out of the remaining area; but some of our provinces unfortunately have done so. It has been said by some of them that you cannot ship cattle through here or there; that is as to cattle as to which there is not any more chance of their having foot-and-mouth disease now than there was a year ago.
Then we have just this morning been told that you cannot ship cattle across a province in order to bring them from two of the western provinces to eastern Canada. It is from those provinces that most of the cattle will have to come if they come for slaughter and also from them that most of the hogs that are surplus will have to come. We are told: You cannot ship them across there. It is all very well to say to us what we should do, but that is the position taken up to date.
Going back into the area the question is asked: Why do you slaughter them? The first reason is that if we did not slaughter them, there is not a chance in the world of our getting back into the United States market. That is the practice that is followed in the United States and it is the practice that they believe ought to be followed. Our effort in what we are doing is to get back into that market as soon as we can and we are following the same practice that they follow. It is one thing to say that they do this other thing in Britain and do something else on the continent. They have had the disease for gen-jrations on the continent of Europe and for a long time in Britain. I am told in most of those countries they do not do what we do. One of the reasons they do -not do it is on account of what I mentioned last night,
Foot-and-mouth disease namely, that there is no danger in eating that meat. There is no danger to a human being in eating the meat. In countries where they require the meat and cannot afford to buy it, they use the meat.


An hon. Member:: They cook it.


James Garfield Gardiner: They cook it and put it in cans, or cure it or do something else with it, and use it. But we are here living on a continent where it has been the practice, not only in the United States but in this country, to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of these two areas. Therefore the practice has been followed in the United States right up until now-we have never had to follow it until now-of killing all animals that come in contact with the disease. If we are going to get back into the United States market at any reasonable time in the future, we shall have to follow that policy. There will be a certain amount of doubt. Even -as to animals that we might think bad foot-and-mouth disease we will do it. But from listening to the arguments put forward here, I am sure that many of the members in the house are far more fully convinced than I am that -all those animals had foot-and-mouth disease. They being so convinced, you -can quite understand how other people would feel if those animals are allowed, within the next six months or a year, to come out of those areas and be shipped into other parts of Canada. So we say the better thing to do is to slaughter all of them that have come in contact with the disease, thus absolutely removing any possibility of marketing them. Thus we can say not only to other parts of Canada but to the United States: There is not any danger whatsoever in your taking animals out of the western part of Canada and using them as feeders or for any other purpose.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I be permitted to say a word or two, Mr. Chairman? It may possibly be on account of my unusual ability that eight speakers are permitted on the other side to one on this side in connection with this matter. There is one thing on which I disagree with the Minister of Agriculture, although I do not disagree with him entirely. He says they are not slaughtering any animals at the present time. I know of one old cow that died after walking from Middlesex East because I had part of it for lunch in the restaurant upstairs. I quite agree with the hon. member for Calgary West in what he said yesterday. The reason I am saying that -and it is not a matter of levity-is that there has unquestionably been entertained among some the opinion that it is not safe to eat the meat. As far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Calgary West can send me all the meat he likes-that is not alive-into British

Foot-and-mouth disease Columbia; he can fill my locker from his farm any time he likes and I will advertise that I have that meat there.
When I took part in this discussion on the day after the house opened, I said I did not think there was any use of talking about past mistakes or what has happened. I have been in accord with most of what has been said in this house. I am sorry to say that one or two have tried to make political capital out of the situation. I am sorry for that. During a war we must govern ourselves accordingly for the best interest of Canada. I believe this is a war; it is a war to defend our country with respect to agriculture and I believe that means the economy of Canada as a whole. For that reason I think we should look at the matter from a non-partisan point of view. The discussion on the first day was taken up with consideration of what would be paid to the farmers for the loss of their cattle, and other compensation. I take the stand that this is a national calamity. I want to mention to you three national calamities that we have had in the Dominion of Canada-and I use the word "dominion". The three national calamities were the floods in British Columbia; the Red river flood; and the Rimouski fire. What happened? This parliament was most generous and most fair to the people of those districts affected. That policy was endorsed by the people of Canada. I believe that this parliament will be most fair and most generous to the farmers who, unfortunately, lose any stock through this tragedy which we are now experiencing.


An hon. Member:: Parliament or the government.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Parliament. Parliament is supreme, and this government has at all times recognized the fact that parliament is supreme. I believe that if this parliament did not do so of its own accord, the people of Canada would see to it that we acted in a fair and generous manner in this calamity which is facing us at the present time.
I am sorry to say that all too many of my colleagues do not view this matter with the seriousness with which I view it. As I said on the second day of this session, and I will repeat it now, this is the most important legislation that will face us at this session. Fortunately, to date, the outbreak has not been severe; just a small area has been affected. I feel extremely sorry for those farmers. I am sorry their names were mentioned in the first place. But this is a war. It is a war to eradicate this disease. Whenever you have a war, unfortunately some people must suffer. I am sure they are worthy citizens and good farmers, and they have my entire sympathy.

I happen to represent a district that produces milk. I do not represent a beef country. I represent a district that produces 75 per cent, on a conservative estimate, of all the fluid milk used in the province of British Columbia. I am naturally concerned about those farmers. I am not worried about the absolutely ridiculous way, as I see it, that this affair was carried on in the first place. Unfortunately-and I repeat it, whether the minister likes it or not-we have some officials who should not be in positions they hold now. But fortunately there is a job waiting for them to which they can be transferred without loss of prestige and which they are more capable of doing, namely digging the St. Lawrence waterway with a shovel. I have no apology for making that statement. We have veterinarians in the Dominion of Canada, we have them in British Columbia and in my own riding, who are capable, but we have some very inefficient ones in high positions in the Department of Agriculture right in Ottawa. I know what I would do with them if I were Minister of Agriculture. It is now four-thirty. By seven minutes to five, if that were long enough, they would be gone. I have nothing more to say about that.
What is the use of worrying about what has happened in the past? Let us look to the future. It was emphasized the other day, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will emphasize it, that the greatest loss we have had is the loss of the United States market. I understand the embargo is on for sixty days. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of Hansard and my own constituency, I want you to note that I am not reading my speech or even speaking from notes. I have never done that and never will. If I have to do that I shall do like others, give a copy of it to the press gallery and to Hansard before I deliver it. As I have said, the greatest loss we have had so far is the loss of the United States market. I know nothing about American politics but I have lived long enough to take an even bet that the embargo will be on until at least November of this year, and for certain reasons. I believe the embargo will be on for a long long time.
This is the fourth calamity that has struck the country in recent years, as was mentioned in the house yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture. The first was the Fraser river flood, the second was the Red river flood and the third the Rimouski fire. I want to point out to you what they did at the time of the Red river flood, Mr. Chairman. I say this for the benefit of some hon. members who represent rural ridings in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, who look upon this

matter as just taking up time. I want to point out to you what they did in Manitoba and in the city of Winnipeg at the time of the Red river flood.


An hon. Member:: What has that to do with foot-and-mouth disease?


George Alexander Cruickshank: They went out and got the best available engineers who had recent experience to advise them on floods. I hope that satisfies my hon. friend who interrupted me. If you know what is coming you will not interrupt, but I do not think you will ever see that far. They got the best engineers they could find who had had experience in floods to advise them. What happened with respect to rehabilitation? They brought in two men from British Columbia who had assisted in rehabilitation after the floods in the Fraser valley in 1948. I am very proud of the fact that the Manitoba government wired the government of British Columbia asking for these men, and they were flown in immediately. I refer to Colonel Baldwin and Mr. W. L. Mackin, who happened to come from my riding. They stayed in Winnipeg as long as the Manitoba government desired to have them there to advise on rehabilitation. 1 mention that, Mr. Chairman, to indicate what the federal government should do because unquestionably some of their officials have fallen down. That is a thing of the past. They did not have the knowledge. I do not think they have the experience. I will leave it at that, because that is the kindest way I can put it.
If I were the Minister of Agriculture I would go to the United States and I would ask them to lend me a competent man. They have had experience with this disease. I would ask them to lend me the finest veterinarians they have. I would go to Holland, to Britain and to other parts of Europe, and I would ask for the loan of those veterinarians who have had experience in this disease. I would have them brought in here. I am sure these governments would send them to us as a friendly act under the Colombo plan or reverse lend-lease, if you like. In addition, Mr. Chairman, we have numerous planes that are flying abroad on what I would call joy trips; they are flying certain people all over the world. We could send a few of them to pick up these veterinarians who have had experience.
As the minister says, I believe this terrible disease has been confined to a small area. I believe it has not cost the country or the individual farmers a very great deal up to the present time, but our biggest loss is the United States market. How can we possibly get the United States people to lift the embargo at an early date? The only way that I can see we can do it is to do as I
Foot-and-mouth disease suggest, namely, bring in veterinarians from Europe who have had experience, and also veterinarians from Mexico and Britain. If we do that we will go a long way toward gaining the good will of the United States congress and we will show them that we are not dependent on our local officials but are willing to call on those who have experience, which has been exemplified by their past efforts. Speaking on behalf of my riding-in spite of the fact that a great many of my colleagues do not see it as I do, I view it as the most serious thing facing our country today. It is the first thing that the government should take into consideration and I earnestly urge the minister to consult with some of these countries through his officials. I would like to see done exactly what was done at the time of the Fraser valley flood. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce sent a capable engineer to British Columbia. I would like to see these experienced veterinarians come here, if for no other reason than to convince the American people that we are sincere in our endeavour to eradicate the disease so that we may have the embargo lifted.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just say a word? The only thing I wish to reply to is the suggestion of bringing in veterinarians. We have already done what the hon. member has suggested in so far as the United States are concerned. They sent up Dr. Shahan, who is the top United States authority, and the man who conducted this campaign in Mexico against foot-and-mouth disease. He does not remain there constantly, but he is in and out of the district, advising our people and assisting them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about these experts from European countries? Could we not bring in some of them? I am sure the governments would send them over if we asked for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Our feeling with regard to that is that their objective in these countries is so different from our objective here that it is better to depend upon the United States advice. Our objective is the same as that of the United States, namely, to destroy it entirely in the small area, and we are using the best men we have here and the best men the United States can send us.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to ask a question about the inability of the Burns company to tell the department where the cattle came from. It may well be so and yet I doubt it. It is certainly most important that the department ascertain as far as possible where the company bought these cattle. My hon. friend, the
98

Foot-and-mouth disease member for Selkirk, tells me that when he delivers cattle to the stockyards he gets a cheque for the cattle delivered. Can the department not find out from Bums what cheques they made out, and to whom, during this period we are discussing, in an endeavour to find out at least the individuals who sold cattle to Burns, and then to check, through those individuals, where they bought or received their cattle from. Surely the Burns company is willing to co-operate with the department to that extent. Can the minister give us any information about that?


James Garfield Gardiner: 1 cannot add very much to the information I have already given on it, that I do not think there is any hesitation on the part of Burns to give us all the information they can. There is no doubt that we have done everything we could in order to get all the information they have. But what they tell us is-and we think there is some reason in it-that if you turn 80 cattle into a feed lot and you send one of your employees in from day to day in order to pick out those which are ready to slaughter and drive them into a slaughter house and have them slaughtered, unless he has kept a very careful record of each animal he takes today and where they came from, it would not be very long until it would be difficult for anyone to say that this animal came from that farm. If the Burns company did say that the animal came off a farm where there never had been any of the disease, I should think the individual who had been named might feel that he had some right of action in the matter.
There is no doubt they will be careful. I am sure that as soon as they can give us the information, they will give it to us, if they can.	[DOT]


Douglas Scott Harkness: Are they branded cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they are not branded. Well, perhaps I should not say they are not, because some of them might be. Some might come off the small ranches south of Regina, where they do use brands.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I can see
the difficulty in tracing cattle. However, this matter is so serious that every possible check should be made as to the conditions on farms of those who delivered cattle to Burns and Company during this time. One way of doing it would be to go through their records and finding out those to whom they paid cheques.


Mr. Ferrie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to come to the defence of the packing plants. Some hon. members say that these tickets are issued. I ship millions of dollars' worth


of stock to the Burns plant and I can say here without the shadow of a doubt that that is their living, their livelihood. That is what they will try to do and, I am sure, what they are trying to do. They will try to get to the bottom of this so as to find out exactly where these cattle came from.
These buyers go to the stockyards and proceed in a fashion different from that followed in eastern Canada. They might have ten or a dozen killers. In that pen there might be one that is generally known as a sixty. That is what the buyer goes by, and that pen is put on the ticket. The animal goes to the weight scale and is weighed. Then it goes to the feed lot. The only man who could pick it out of the feed lot is the man who raised it.
Burns have a double duty. The first duty is to protect the man who shipped the steer, and to be absolutely sure that it did come from that farm. His neighbour might say that the farm is infected with foot-and-mouth disease. If Burns and Company were wrong, it would be a bad thing for the farmer. Burns cannot afford to be wrong.
Why do hon. members say that Burns and Company are shirking their duty, and that they are not trying to find out where the animals came from? I say that Burns will do everything they can to produce that ticket to show where the animal came from, just as soon as they are absolutely sure.
I have been in the cattle business ever since I was knee high to a grasshopper and, during that time, I have been through glanders epidemics. I have been through what we called cattle mange when we dipped all the cattle in an area thirty miles around. I have complete faith in the officials in the Department of Agriculture, and in the provincial officials, and I am sure they will clean up this mess. Let us be fair to the farmer. Let us be fair to all those people out in Saskatchewan. Let us forget all this discussion and get down to passing the bill. Let us help those boys out there on the farms who are suffering right now.


John Alpheus Charlton: When was Dr. Shahan of the United States asked to come to Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: He was asked four or five days before the disease was actually diagnosed. They were notified just as soon as we had any feeling that the disease might be developing. He came at once.


John Alpheus Charlton: That would be around
February 17 or 18?


James Garfield Gardiner: February 17 was approximately the date of his arrival.


John Alpheus Charlton: How long will the quarantine of this area be kept up?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was about to correct the suggestion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley when he said it would be sixty days. There is no limit on the quarantine. The quarantine is on. Under American law it cannot be taken off until sixty days after the department of agriculture in the United States is satisfied that we have eradicated the disease. Their regulations provide that they cannot take the quarantine off this country until they are sure the disease has been eradicated.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think the minister has misunderstood my question. He is now referring to the embargo. The United States has nothing to do with the quarantining of our cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, an embargo with
respect to this country is a quarantine in this country, so long as the foot-and-mouth disease is here. We cannot send animals out.


John Alpheus Charlton: True, but that is an embargo against our cattle going into the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: How long after the last case do we maintain the quarantine in the area now quarantined?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will have to be held for a time. I imagine we will be cleared with the United States more quickly if we apply practically the same regulations they apply. It will have to be somewhere close, perhaps, to sixty days.


John Alpheus Charlton: After the last case.


James Garfield Gardiner: After we think the area has been cleared.


John Alpheus Charlton: If we did not find another animal diseased in that area from now on, when would the quarantine be lifted? That has nothing to do with the embargo.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I should say anything more than I have said, namely, that I think we would find it necessary, not only in order to satisfy the United States but in order to satisfy people in other parts of Canada that we are going to keep the district closed, to say that we will apply practically the same regulation as the Americans apply. That regulation is that, once they are satisfied the area has been cleaned up, then they believe they should keep the embargo on for at least another sixty days.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is, the quarantine.
55704-7J
Foot-and-mouth disease


James Garfield Gardiner: It is an embargo against us, so far as they are concerned. Their law says that they must place an embargo against the shipment of livestock into the United States from any country in which there is foot-and-mouth disease. Then their regulations go on to say that they cannot take that off until sixty days after the department of agriculture in that country is satisfied that the disease has been cleaned up. You can call it a quarantine or an embargo, as you wish; but that is what they say.
We will have to satisfy the people in other parts of Canada that we have taken the same care with regard to this quarantined district. Otherwise they will have reason to complain, if we begin to ship earlier.


John Alpheus Charlton: The quarantine, then, might be kept on in that area just as long as the embargo is kept on against our cattle going into the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the Americans will not take it off inside of sixty days. I am saying simply this, that we might have to meet their situation and say that any time after sixty days we can take it off. But we would not necessarily wait until the Americans take it off.


Hazen Robert Argue: From the minister's statement this afternoon, and from what he now says- and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong- it seems to me that the quarantined area, about 2,500 square miles in extent, is likely to remain in a state of quarantine for quite a few months-or, as the minister himself said, perhaps six months or a year. If he accepts that, then I should like to make a few comments on the situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I do not think I said six months or a year. I wish only to correct the hon. member's statement to that extent.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister wishes to break it down, I shall let him.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have said we should follow the United States regulations. Those regulations will not permit cattle to be shipped into that country from a country where the disease is present. Then they provide that sixty days after they are satisfied it has been cleaned up they will apply it. We are hopeful that we may be able to clean up this area in a much shorter time than three months, say. We may be wrong in that. Then for some period after that we would have to keep control.


Hazen Robert Argue: As I understand it, after the last farm within that quarantine area where the disease existed there may be a waiting period of ninety days, and then after that

Foot-and-mouth disease ninety-day period there would be a further period of sixty days if we followed the United States policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know where the hon. member got his ninety days.


Hazen Robert Argue: I saw it in the papers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister state how long it will be, after the last slaughtering within the quarantine area has taken place, before the people in that area can expect the quarantine to be lifted, of course providing there are no more outbreaks. What is the minimum period of time after the last slaughtering on the last farm within that quarantine area in which the quarantine will be lifted?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I can give a definite answer at this moment and I do not think I should. Every precaution will be taken so that we can assure the rest of the people in Canada that there is no danger in accepting meat, perhaps for a period, and then a little later accepting livestock out of that area.


Hazen Robert Argue: It will take the department here at least a few months to clean up the situation. Then we will have whatever further period the United States will insist on. There may be a minimum quarantine period within that area of five or six months. Let us just have a look at the way this quarantine is going to affect, not only the twenty or thirty farmers on whose farms the disease now exists but the two thousand other farmers in this area.
A ban has been placed on the movement of grain. A lot of this grain is in a damp condition. Thousands and thousands of bushels of damp grain are in the country elevators in that area or on the farms themselves. Spring is just around the corner and then we will have a period when heating and spoilage of damp grain will occur. These farmers who have damp grain may lose because of this quarantine just as surely as those farmers whose cattle are affected.
I want to know from the minister what the	government	will	do	to	assist	those
farmers whose cattle are affected.
I want to know from the minister what the	government	will	do	to	assist	those
farmers who have damp grain which may spoil because of the quarantine. There are many farmers in that area with the bulk of their 1951 crops still on the farm or out in the field. How will they be able to farm this year with a ban on the shipment of grain when many of the elevators are plugged

with grain at the present moment? What consideration will the government give to providing some income stability for those farmers or some compensation for the spoilage of damp grain?
What about the producers of milk within the area whose cattle may be slaughtered? They will receive compensation for their capital investment in cattle, but under the legislation as it is now drafted they will not get any compensation for loss of revenue through inability to produce milk for the next year or so.


James Garfield Gardiner: The first question involves some supposition as to what may happen. I have not said, and I am sure no one having to do with administering this area will say, that the check on grain will be kept on, particularly grain to be marketed through the elevators, for the same length of time as it will be kept on livestock. The fact that the district may be quarantined for four or five months does not prevent the terms of that quarantine being changed from time to time. It is not necessarily true that the quarantine will be kept on grain as long as it is kept on other things.
Having said that, I do not think I should discuss the other question. That question may come up in many different ways, as to what it may be necessary to do or what may be done in connection with losses from damp or tough grain. I do not think we should have decisions made here before passing this bill, either as to what ought to be done or what ought not to be done in connection with that. The relationship between the livestock of a farmer and his returns, either from milk or from anything else, is a matter which -will be considered by the board that is to be set up in order to arrive at what remuneration ought to be paid to individuals. In considering this question there are many matters that will have to be reviewed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are one or two matters on which I should like to get more information. The minister said earlier that five cattle from the Waas farm went into the Burns plant, I think on November 22.


James Garfield Gardiner: November 23.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The disease on the Waas farm was reported to the veterinary on November 26, three days later. We were told yesterday that the period of incubation for this disease is from four to six days, which would mean that the five cattle delivered on November 23 had been in contact with other cattle which were found to be diseased three days later.

No doubt considerable cattle were moved out of these yards between November 23, when the five cattle from the Waas farm were delivered, and December 28 when the first quarantine was imposed. Those cattle may have been shipped as feeder cattle or they may have been shipped out for slaughtering. Can the minister tell what shipments actually were made between November 23 and December 28, and where those shipments went to?


Mr, Gardiner:: I suppose this question is based upon the supposition that the five cattle delivered by Mr. Waas were in the yards for a time and might have been mixed up with other cattle that were shipped out. The information is that on November 23, 1951, five veal calves were sold by Leonard T. Waas to Burns and Company at Regina and were all slaughtered the next day. So they were not mixed with other cattle, and they were not shipped out. As to the other question, I am sorry I cannot give all the figures with regard to the activities of the Burns company from December 1 down to the time they were quarantined late in December.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point is that these five cattle which were in contact with other infected cattle went into the Burns plant at this time, and that plant continued in operation for some five weeks before the quarantine was imposed. The minister says the five cattle were slaughtered the next day, but it still means they would be in contact with a considerable number of cattle in those yards before they were slaughtered. Yesterday when we were discussing this matter the minister said all cattle from the Burns yards had been tracked down and it was found they did not have any disease. Since only two cattle went out of those yards from the time the quarantine was first imposed up to the present, as the minister said this afternoon, that must mean that the cattle Which were traced down went out between November 23 and December 28. I am asking whether the department has discovered what shipments were made during that period and where those shipments went. From what was said yesterday I take it this must have been done, and now I am asking for the results of that investigation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Referring to my statement which was quoted, when I said the animals which had been shipped had been traced to their destination I was not referring to the Burns plant. I was referring to the area fifty miles square. Animals which were shipped out of that area were traced to their destination.


Douglas Scott Harkness: After the quarantine was imposed?
Foot-and-mouth disease


James Garfield Gardiner: Not only after the quarantine was imposed; after it was evident that there had been some disease in the area. So far as it was possible to do so all the animals which were shipped out of the area were checked. The information I have today indicates that not many went out of the Burns plant. The Burns company is not in the business of buying animals to ship somewhere else. It is in the business of buying animals to slaughter and produce meat. It does not ship out live animals except in unusual circumstances. It takes in live animals and ships out meat, and that is what it was doing both before and during the period of quarantine. The quarantine meant that it could not send out animals for any reason. It could not even send out the two that were sent out between the quarantines.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister understands that I have some knowledge of how these livestock people operate. I know the Burns company is in the packing business, and that normally the cattle they buy are eventually slaughtered. But quite frequently for some reason or other cattle may be bought at Regina and sent to a plant in Hull or some place else in eastern Canada, or they may buy feeder cattle and decide to sell them to somebody else to feed. In any event I do not think the minister has yet given a definite answer to the question whether the department has made any investigation into what animals did go out of this plant between November 23 and December 28. That is the first question to which I would like a definite answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that investigations have been made. As far as we know very few if any animals went out during that period. Burns in Calgary is one thing and Burns in Regina is quite another. As my hon. friend knows, the Burns company have had large ranching areas in Alberta over a long period, and they are dealing in cattle in relation to their own ranch as well as cattle for slaughtering. At Regina they just have a packing house and feed lot, and they bring in animals with the idea of killing them. They do find they have to feed some of them for a while before they are slaughtered, and those are put in the feed lot. All those cattle are intended to be slaughtered, but there may be some reason why they will ship a few to some other plant. They have a plant in Prince Albert as well, and for some reason they may decide to ship some animals to some other place. As far as possible all those have been traced and no disease has developed anywhere those animals have gone. Two, as I have said, went to Moose Jaw to be

Foot-and-mouth disease slaughtered', and they were slaughtered just after their arrival. That is the information we get.
I can understand hon. members wanting to be absolutely certain the disease is not being spread because of anything that has been done by Burns or anyone else, and I can assure hon. members in all parts of the house that everything anyone could possibly do has been done ever since there was any suspicion that this was foot-and-mouth disease.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A moment ago the minister said all these animals had been traced, and he specified the two that went to Moose Jaw. If all have been traced, then could he give us the number of cattle that went out? He must have those figures. Can he tell us the number of cattle that were shipped from there, and where they went?


James Garfield Gardiner: Is my hon. friend speaking of the whole area or of the Burns plant?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have been speaking
particularly of the cattle that went into the Burns yards, either the stockyards for killing or the feed lots for feeding.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not the figures at the moment, though we can get them, as to the number of animals. I am informed that the number is insignificant, very small indeed, that went out of the plant or out of the feed lots. They have slaughtered most of their animals; but that small number has been traced to the extent that they have been handled since there has been any indication of the disease. I am told that the shipments from the area itself to other parts of Canada and even into the United States for a period prior to November 26 have also been traced. How far back they have gone I am not in a position to state at the moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: One of the reasons I am asking this question is that we hear a considerable number of stories concerning a fair number of cattle. The minister says the number is very small. I have heard that these cattle might aggregate as many as a hundred or more, that this number of cattle were shipped from this feed lot or these killing yards during this period. I think it would help allay the fears of people in other parts of the country if stories of that sort could be definitely denied, and suspicions of that kind ended. That is why I am asking for the definite information. If the minister does not have it that is all there is to it, but I would certainly ask that he get this information just as quickly as possible and give it to the house.


I would like to mention one other matter. In making his first statement this afternoon the minister said that the stock shipped from the feed lot had been traced, and it has been determined that none of the animals were carriers. How was that determined? I ask that question particularly because when I was speaking yesterday afternoon I asked if the Waas herd had been tested even up to this time to determine whether they had stomatitis only, or whether they had foot-and-mouth disease, in other words whether laboratory tests had been made in connection with these animals. At page 74 of Hansard for yesterday the minister interrupted and said:
The disease was diagnosed as stomatitis. That was in December, and by January 6 they were clear of any disease. It is impossible to go and test those cattle. I think my hon. friend will agree that when the disease is not in the animals at all there is no way fo checking the virus because the virus is not there.
If it has not been possible to check the Waas cattle, how was it possible to check the cattle which were shipped out of this feed lot to determine that they were not carriers?


James Garfield Gardiner: My only mistake in what I have said up to the moment is that I did not take in enough territory. All the animals that have been shipped out of the three prairie provinces into any other part of Canada or into the United States have been checked. We have actually had men out checking them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the nature of that check?	.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just let me get through. It has been found that none of the animals have taken either stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease. Of course, it is not necessary to check them in order to see whether they are frothing at the mouth or whether they have one disease or the other. They have all been checked, and none of them have taken the disease. I do not know why we would want any further evidence. If they had developed the disease, then the area to which they went would have been quarantined. They have not taken either one disease or the other, so there have been no quarantines.
There has been very free use of the name of my assistant in this discussion, and he is the holder of probably as many cattle from western Canada as at least anyone in this house. He just said to me a moment ago, and he is quite free to say what he wishes to the house, that these men who have been investigating have been all through that part of the country checking these cattle. This has been

going on for some time, and we are satisfied that the disease has not been spread by shipment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point I was getting at was that yesterday the minister said there were cattle that could not be checked.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that there were cattle that did not have the disease, and could not be checked for a disease that they did not have. I am now saying that if an animal has not got the disease, even if it is in Ontario, you cannot check it. There is no way of checking that. These men go into the areas and find out whether any of these animals developed stomatitis or something that looks like foot-and-mouth disease. None of them have developed these diseases.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then I take it, Mr. Chairman, that what the minister said in his initial statement shortly after we started, to the effect that the cattle had been traced and it had been determined that none of the animals were carriers, meant that there was a visible check that showed none of these animals had developed stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: After a certain time they had not developed the disease as a result of coming from this area.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as I can make out this check has been made within the last week or so, so I do not understand why the minister indicates it has been going on for some time.
It would appear from what we have heard that if these Waas cattle did not have foot-and-mouth disease they at least had stomatitis. It would appear from that it is probable both foot-and-mouth disease and stomatitis exist in the area now under quarantine. I am wondering if the departmental officials are proceeding on that assumption in their check throughout the whole country, that both stomatitis and foot-and-mouth disease might be spread from that area.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have satisfied ourselves that it has not been spread in the past outside the area. It could be argued perhaps that it did spread from a few oases in one place over that area. If we had not caught it in the time we did, it might have spread to a much wider area. We think we have it confined to that one area. We are satisfied it was not spread anywhere else either before or since we made the diagnosis which has been based on these three or four animals. I do not think there is any reason for suggesting that it did spread, and we think we have it sufficiently under control that it will not spread.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one other question on a different phase of the matter which I
Foot-and-mouth disease should like to ask the minister. It concerns the ban which the province of Manitoba has now placed against livestock and meat from the other provinces. So far as livestock entering the province is concerned, I might be inclined to have some sympathy with Manitoba in banning livestock coming from the west or from this quarantine area. So far as cattle from Alberta are concerned, it is completely free of this disease, and I cannot see why this action should be taken. I cannot see why there should be a fear of these cattle.
However, the shipment of meat through a province generally takes place in sealed refrigerator cars. It seems to me that it is carrying things altogether too far to ban such shipments. I wonder if the minister would make any statement in this connection and say whether any action is contemplated to prevent that serious situation continuing. Certainly the danger of infection from chilled or frozen meat in a refrigerator car passing through a province seems to me to be nonexistent.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not taking any further action at the moment, but are checking, so far as we can, our constitutional position in relation to the provinces.


Mr. Herridge:: I have sat here since
yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman, listening with great interest to this debate. I must say that before I came here my only knowledge of this difficulty was from reading press reports. Since this debate commenced, I have learned a lot. I want to say that, like many other members, I particularly appreciated the explanation of this disease given to the house by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth. I thought he enlightened us to a great extent, particularly in view of the fact that the minister had previously left the impression that one had to send to England to obtain some material in order to diagnose the disease.
After listening carefully to the debate I have come to the conclusion that there has been gross negligence on the part of the members of the health of animals branch. I believe that in this case some of the minister's senior officials have let him down very badly. I was surprised, after the debate had progressed to the point it had, that the minister made such a vigorous defence of his officials without obtaining more information. It was obvious to me that the minister was not very well informed on the actual situation when this debate began.
In view of the fact that the director general of veterinary services has viewed this subject with great alarm in reports given to this house throughout the years, I am surprised at the delay in dealing with the matter. To

Foot-and-mouth disease indicate the concern of the director general I am going to read a short paragraph or two of the annual report from the veterinary director general, T. Childs, V.S., D.V.M. In his annual report for the year ending March 31, 1950, dealing with this question, he said:
As the danger of foot-and-mouth disease being introduced into Canada from countries where this disease is permitted to exist is always present, and has been enhanced during recent years by the ease and rapidity with which transportation may be effected by air, the presence of this disease in countries with which Canada has trade relations is a matter of deep concern. In this connection it is reassuring to note that foot-and-mouth disease, which appeared in the republic of Mexico during 1946, and spread over wide areas of that country before effective measures could be taken to control it, has, through the joint efforts of Mexican and United States authorities, been brought under control. However, as there are but a few countries in the world which are known to be entirely free of this disease, it is imperative that the greatest vigilance be exercised at all times to prevent this disease from being introduced into Canada by regular trade channels.
The director general says the greatest vigilance is necessary. After listening to this debate, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that no one could truthfully say that the greatest vigilance had been exercised so far as the outbreak of this disease is concerned. Now I want to read another short paragraph in that report:
Uncooked, chilled, or frozen meats, or meat food products from countries where the disease exists are particularly dangerous and no products of this nature are accepted for entry to Canada.
At that point I want to suggest that if seven veterinary officials from the director general's department made seven negative reports, surely that fact alone should be sufficient to arouse suspicion. The very fact that seven were called in indicates some element of doubt in the minds of those who were investigating the question. In my opinion, where there was any element of doubt, extra vigilance should have been exercised.
Now I want to read from the report of the veterinary director general for the year ended March 31, 1951. This is what he has to say at page 6:
The danger of foot-and-mouth disease being introduced into Canada through normal trade activities, or otherwise, from countries in which this destructive disease is permitted to exist, continues to be a matter of serious concern. This disease has never gained a foothold in Canada, consequently Canadian livestock, that is, cattle, other ruminants and swine, can be considered as being decidedly vulnerable. Therefore, the introduction of this disease into Canada would likely be attended by greater than average mortality, and greater than average impairment of productive capacity of infected animals, if such animals were permitted to survive. It is noted with satisfaction and considerable relief, that the foot-and-mouth disease situation in Mexico appears to be very well in hand.

Then the report goes on to deal at further length with this disease. In view of the fact that the director general admits the greater hazards owing to the rapidity of air transportation and, I presume, of immigration and that sort of thing, I would have thought that he would have advised his minister to recommend to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that special precautions should be taken with respect to immigrants coming from infected areas in European countries. The very fact that this was not done-and it is a practice in other countries-in my opinion indicates further negligence in dealing with this most serious question.
I do not intend to speak for long, Mr. Chairman. This is not the first instance, in my opinion, and that of a good many people who are interested in agriculture and of scientific agriculturists, which indicates that the department of the director general is not functioning as it should function today in the interests of agriculture. I refer to Newcastle disease in poultry, as to which there has been a great deal of experience in the United States. A great deal of work has been undertaken in Great Britain. Yet the director general insisted on a policy of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of poultry, and paying compensation, in an effort to stamp out the disease. It is a fact that this year the policy is changed, and there is now in effect a policy of mass vaccination by live vaccine of poultry in this country. This has been the situation regardless of the fact that a good many animal pathologists in Canada and in other countries were not in favour of the previous policy, as the result of years of study. I say frankly, Mr. Chairman, that there are a good number of people in this country interested in scientific agriculture who are of the opinion that there is not the best of co-operation between various branches of the minister's department, such as between the department of the director general and the various laboratories, the director general is inclined to be living in the horse-and-buggy days, as one prominent agriculturist said to me two days ago, and that it is exceedingly difficult to get him out of the ruts of those days. I have talked to qualified pathologists in Canada, and I have talked to one or two qualified United States pathologists; and I listened to those people with a great deal of interest. They were quite critical of certain aspects of our administration so far as the director general's branch is concerned.
I suggest that the minister would be well advised to go thoroughly into all aspects of this question and inquire into the operation of this branch of the department. I was

pleased to see the minister and his fellow ministers who were with him in the house at the time quite readily agreed that this matter should be the subject of investigation by the committee on agriculture. In view of the experience of Canadian poultry producers in connection with Newcastle disease and in view of this outbreak, I suggest that the question to be discussed by the standing committee on agriculture should be an investigation into the health of animals branch of the minister's department.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, there are only two things that were mentioned that I think I should say a word about. I presume that the hon. member was in the house when I was speaking yesterday and when I dealt with the seven veterinarians who had made reports. These were not government veterinarians attached to this department; that is, the whole seven of them were not. The first one was the local veterinarian called in by Mr. Waas. The second one was the local veterinarian called in when it was found that the first one was sick. The third one that was called in was the chief veterinarian in the province of Saskatchewan; he is an employee of the provincial government, not of this government. The fourth one that was called in-and he was called in by Dr. Johnson- was our man at Regina, namely Dr. Christie. Then Dr. Christie put one of his men on the job to check the matter through completely from there. That will indicate that it was not seven members of the staff of this department that made the finding at all. Three men made the finding before we were consulted about the matter in any way whatsoever. Then our men simply verified what the others had found when they examined into the disease.
The other thing I wish to comment on is this. My hon. friend said he did not know anything about this matter when we started discussing it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Except what I saw in the
press.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, except what he saw in the press. I am afraid he did not even read the press very well, because he goes on to criticize me for having said, at the beginning of this debate, that the only place you could get this serum was in Great Britain. He apparently learned somewhere-either in the press or in the debate in this house-something different. He is therefore critical. I have here the statement which was made the other day by Dr. M. S. Shahan, chief of the United States animal industry virus research board. It was made in a speech at 55704-8
Foot-and-mouth disease Regina on Wednesday of last week. The report is dated February 28. Here is what he says about the matter:
Speaking of the American livestock embargo, Dr. Shahan said that it would not be lifted until freedom from the disease has been determined by the Canadian officials and the U.S. government is confident of the conclusion. "It depends upon how quickly the disease is eradicated."
Dr. Shahan denied earlier reports that there was a trainload of foot-and-mouth vaccine in Chicago ready to be moved to any point of contamination which may appear in the U.S. "We have no foot-and-mouth vaccine in the U.S.," the American virus-diseases expert said. The department of agriculture has been prohibited by law from having the virus in the country even for experimentation.
There is a question which I am not competent to discuss. It has to do with what is called the war by means of viruses or by means of different methods of distributing disease. There are standing international regulations as to whose workings even I am denied full knowledge as is any other member of this house. These regulations do exist, and it is under these regulations that we must go to Britain to get the serum that is necessary in order to deal with this matter in its final stages. It is all very well to say that an ordinary veterinarian practising around the country can come to the conclusion that this is stomatitis, and everybody accepts his opinion. But eventually you get to the point where there is some reason for thinking otherwise and the only way that you can finally nail the thing down is by getting the serum from the proper place, and it was obtained from the only place we could obtain it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not satisfied yet, even though I got a glib answer to the disposal of the cattle, that I got the facts. I do not want to pursue each and every animal. The minister at least told the hon. member for Calgary East that all of the animals that were sold and disposed of by Burns had been identified and found to be free of disease. That being so, the lack of knowledge he displayed earlier today has been changed by the information that he has obtained recently, or within the last few hours, which shows, according to his statement, that each of these animals has been properly followed and found not to be a carrier of or to suffer from the disease.
Having said that, one does not want in any way to place before the committee information, however dependable, unless he can vouch for the facts. That is the course I have always followed, and for that reason I welcomed the minister's undertaking yesterday that the committee on agriculture would

Foot-and-mouth disease in fact be set up. I take it that this Committee will be set up immediately, because unless it is it will-


Mr. Abbott:: It is a standing committee.


John George Diefenbaker: As the Minister of Finance says, it is a standing committee, and I presume it will be convened immediately so that all information may be forthcoming and we will have an opportunity of examining the deputy minister and the officials of the department in order to secure the information that should have been procured from the packers and also generally in connection with the matter.
I want to make it clear that parliament holds governments responsible, not civil servants, and no official of a department should in any way be held responsible for what has been termed the gross negligence that is more apparent as the minister answers. That responsibility is not discharged by making a scapegoat of any official of the government, because the government must accept the responsibility for the failure of those departments over which it has authority.
I was impressed by what the hon. member for Assiniboia said. He raised most clearly and fairly the situation that prevails in this area of some 2,500 square miles, and the great difficulties that the farmers are going to have because of their inability to dispose of their crops, and also from the fact, as he pointed out, and properly so, that the elevators there are in the same position as elevators generally throughout the province, namely, packed with damp or tough grain, and therefore making it all the more difficult to dispose of.
I raised that question yesterday and I went on to deal with the subject matter of this legislation. The hon. member for Assiniboia asked the minister some questions yesterday regarding the meaning of section 2(1). If I understood the minister aright, he interpreted section 2(1) to mean that in addition to what is provided as payment under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act there would be paid a further amount, namely, an amount which is fair and reasonable, as determined by the valuation board. If I am correct in my understanding of what the minister said yesterday, then what is provided here is in addition to the $40, or the $100, as the case may be, that is provided in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I think the hon. member for Fort William was right when he said it was legislation, that was so drawn that everybody could understand it. My understanding

of section 2(1) is that it does not so provide. The wording is:
Notwithstanding anything in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, the Minister of Agriculture may order that fair and reasonable compensation be paid . . .
I do not think the word "notwithstanding" should be there. In order to clarify it, it should provide that: "In addition to anything provided for in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act ..." I am passing this on to the minister because I think that parliament wants to draft legislation that will mean what the minister and parliament intend it shall mean. I suggest for his consideration that the word "notwithstanding" be deleted, and that there be substituted therefor:
In addition to any payment provided for in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, the Minister of Agriculture may order that fair and reasonable compensation be paid1 . . .
And so forth. That would remove any misunderstanding so that farmers generally would know exactly that what they are going to receive is in addition to what is provided for in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Yesterday I asked the minister whether "fair and reasonable compensation" was not in fact a term which generally leaves to the valuation board or to the minister and the governor in council power to determine without a yardstick, which no legislation should permit. I brought this to the minister's attention and pointed out that certain cattle will have their commercial value, and the minister agreed with it, and other purebred cattle will have a very much greater value. The minister also indicated that some cows will be with calf, and that allowances should be made in such a case. Today the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out the potential loss, for reasons beyond their control, that will be occasioned to dairy farmers who will be denied their livelihood not only during the period of the quarantine but possibly a good deal longer and until such time as they are able to restore their herds. What I had in mind yesterday was that we in parliament must make legislation effectual so as to afford insurance against the loss by these farmers of these intangibles such as have been referred to by the minister and also by the hon. member for Assiniboia. As the legislation stands at the present time, "fair and reasonable compensation" will, if I understand anything about interpretation, not cover the position of the person with cattle subject to the intangibles to which I made reference.
For that reason, and in order to clarify the matter, I am going to give notice now, so that the minister may consider it, that the section should be amended by the addition of

certain words. This is in addition to the suggestions already made for purposes of clarification. I shall send the minister a copy of the amendment, so that he will have it before him. He will note that one of the sections now reads:
Notwithstanding anything in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, the Minister of Agriculture may order that fair and reasonable compensation be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease, such compensation to be determined, in the manner prescribed by regulations to be made by the governor in council, and after a report by a board of valuators to be appointed by the governor in council.
To that I suggest the addition of these words:
But in no case to be less than the economic value of the animal at the time the foot-and-mouth disease was diagnosed as such in Canada.
This will cover, first of all, the economic value. After all, that is the valuation the farmers in this area will suffer. Secondly it will provide that the basis upon which payment is to be made will be the economic value as at the date the disease was first ascertained rather than the date the valuation takes place, at which time there would be the possibility that prices would have fallen.
I make these suggestions in order to ensure that the farmers in that particular area of Saskatchewan shall not be penalized because of their geographical position. They shall be compensated and be maintained in the same financial position, in so far as their herds are concerned, as they would have been had this dread disease not stricken their area, thus making them the victims of losses for which they are in no way responsible.
While I am on my feet there is one other matter to which I should like to refer. I take it, from what the minister said, that he felt keenly the difficulties that are bound to arise, having regard to the embargoes that are being brought into existence by the provinces. I realize that there is a joint responsibility for agriculture in the dominion, under dominion and provincial jurisdictions. There is one thing however against which we in Canada must guard, and that is the possibility of the balkanization of Canada.
Carried to the limits that would appear to be constitutionally possible today, we would be doing in effect what the fathers of confederation never hoped or expected, in that we would be bringing about the creation of superior jurisdictions in the relations between one province and another.
What I say is in no way an endeavour to question the embargoes that have been made. Because, after all, the provinces were in a position where they had to defend themselves 55704-8J
Foot-and-mouth disease against the results, at least in part, of delays on the part of federal authorities. But a continuation of provincial embargoes has within it the elements of national disunity. And however constitutionally proper and right the action taken by the provinces may be, I pass along this suggestion to the minister, that in the past the provincial authorities have always co-operated with dominion authorities in matters affecting agriculture, and I feel that at the earliest possible date the minister should bring together representatives of the departments of agriculture in the provinces so as to agree upon a course of action. Then that course of action should be followed, as though it came from the dominion authority.
In effect that would continue the co-operation that should prevail, and would prevent in the future any possible danger that might develop through the exercise of provincial authority and jurisdiction. I repeat what I said earlier, that in my remarks there is no criticism of what the provinces have done. They had to act. Somebody had to act. In order to protect themselves they acted within their constitutional authority-or at least within the generally accepted view of their constitutional authority.
Now that we are in that position, could not the minister use his good offices to come to an agreement with the provinces, and thereby issue whatever order may be necessary in order to protect the interests of the provinces?
I offer that suggestion in the same spiriv as I offered the amendment to the bill because, in its present form, I do not believe the bill protects properly the interests of many farmers within the area affected, who today face a situation more serious than they have ever faced before. This is an area that for years has been the site of catastrophe after catastrophe, in so far as crop production is concerned. Now they are in a position where they are asking that we in parliament do what we can to assure that their losses shall be accepted entirely as a national disaster, instead of endeavouring merely to compensate them on the basis of a fair and reasonable commercial evaluation of the animals they have owned, which have now been destroyed.
When the minister replies I hope he will assure the committee that the committee on agriculture will be set up immediately. If he does, then I for one will be most happy to ask no further questions in respect of matters that have to be cleared up. It is

Foot-and-mouth disease always difficult to clarify them in committee of the whole house. There is much less difficulty in the standing committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I appreciate what the hon. member has said with regard to the setting up of the committee on agriculture. I am sure every hon. member will agree with me when I say that when the proposal was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar at the beginning of the debate, I rose immediately and said it would be quite proper to have the committee on agriculture constituted at the earliest possible moment in order that the facts might be brought out in connection with this matter. So far as I understand there has never been any driving, as some of the reports this morning would indicate, of either the government or the Department of Agriculture to admit that this committee ought to be called. It was suggested by the leader of the C.C.F. in his first remarks that it might be a good thing to have the committee called, and we agreed immediately without any further discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: It will be called.


James Garfield Gardiner: That it should be called as soon as it could possibly be got together. I think the matter of amending the legislation should be left until we are discussing the bill. All I wish to say at the moment is that we will naturally take under consideration the suggestions that have been made. As the hon. member says, one amendment is simply to clarify the section, but there is more in the other amendment. It will be considered and dealt with when the bill is before the house. I do not think I should discuss it further on the resolution stage than to say that.
I do not know that I need to say anything further. I now have the facts with regard to the question that was discussed at some length this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if the minister would say something about the question of calling the provinces together?


James Garfield Gardiner: Naturally we will be doing as much of that as it is possible to do and as soon as it is possible. I suggested last evening that it might be necessary for me to go to Regina on Friday to discuss the question simply because I have been asked by the government in that area where the disease is to go there on Friday. I am taking advantage of the fact that I was going to be there on Monday anyway. It was entirely wrong to imply in the press notice this morning that I was going there to direct the activities. I am not taking the responsibility for the direction of them. In spite of what has been said or


has not been said, that is a matter for the officials of the department who are properly qualified to deal with that sort of thing.
I was going there anyway on Monday for another official purpose and I can go two days earlier and be at the other meeting. This is a meeting of the farm organizations which are interested in this whole thing and which has been called by the provincial authorities. It may be necessary for me to attend that.
After that I do not think there is any reason why we should not have conferences with the provinces in so far as they think they are necessary. I have no hesitation in saying that that is a matter which has been in our minds and I am very pleased to know that as far as the opposition is concerned they are in agreement with that.
I am sure that by whatever means it is brought about we are all anxious that as many of these restrictions on the movement of products within Canada as may be removed ought to be removed, and that will be our objective.
Then the other question had to do with the animals that had gone out of the Burns plant. From the week ending November 24, two days before the disease was discovered, to the week ending December 31 inclusive, which is a day or two before the imposing of the first quarantine, 109 cattle and 9 calves went out of the Burns stockyards, not out of the feed lots or out of the plant but out of the stockyards. All of these animals had to have a health certificate. They all went to country points in Saskatchewan, mostly within fifty miles of Regina. None of them went out of the province. It will be noted that practically all of those which did go out were shipped to points within what we call the buffer area.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister the
figures covering the period December 27 to January 17, the period of the temporary quarantine at Burns?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Calgary East was concerned about the period between the time the disease was discovered and the time the quarantine was first taken off. The figures covering the period from the time the first quarantine was taken off until the other one was put on were given this afternoon. I suppose I could have got them for different periods, but this is what we got by phoning to Regina.


John George Diefenbaker: Am I correct in saying that the Burns plant was under semiquarantine from December 27 to January 17?


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact is that the Burns plant was not under quarantine until December 28. The period about which the hon. member for Calgary East was concerned was the period before they came under quarantine, from the time the disease was discovered until they came under quarantine. We have covered the other period with the facts already brought out.


John George Diefenbaker: My question has to do with the period from December 28 to January 17. Cattle were not being sold by Burns then, but they were sold afterwards. How many cattle sold after January 17 had been there during the period from December 28 to January 17?


James Garfield Gardiner: They were quarantined on December 28 and the quarantine was off on January 17. Nothing could go out during that period. The quarantine was put on again in February and in the period between January 17 and February only two animals went out of the feeding lots. Those two animals went to Moose Jaw where they were slaughtered.


John George Diefenbaker: We are just not looking at the thing in the same way. I want to find out how many of the animals which were in the Burns plant, that is live animals, during the period December 28 to January 17, the period of quarantine, were sold or disposed of after January 17 when it was lifted. I am referring not only to the feed lots, but to the general plant.


James Garfield Gardiner: There really could not be any go out during the quarantine period, and I think that will be agreed. Those that were in the plant amounted to something between seventy and eighty in the feed lots. Two of those went out. None of the others would be in what is known as the Burns plant. There might have been some in the stockyards that were handled.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister give the figures of those that were in the stockyards from December 28 to January 17?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure we will agree that, whatever the number was, if this precaution was taken in December to see that all animals shipped out had health certificates, the same thing would apply to any animals that went out during that period.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to have those figures.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not make much difference whether it was one hundred or fifty; they were all treated in the same manner.
Foot-and-mouth disease At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege out of respect to the hon. member for Fraser Valley. As reported at page 52 of Hansard of yesterday the hon. member said:
I tell you, Mr. Chairman, we have a milk shed only some 65 miles long-it is not all in my riding. Part of it is in the riding of the hon. member for New Westminster.
Then Hansard goes on:


John George Diefenbaker: What has that to do with foot-and-mouth disease?
No such statement was made by me. I did not interrupt my hon. and gallant friend. I was listening to him with interest at the time, and the words ascribed to me must have been spoken by someone else.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, providing for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up second reading but I do want to refer to one or two matters I mentioned just before the dinner hour, having to do with certain suggestions concerning amendments. I suggested that the minister consider agreeing to certain amendments in order to make the general intent of the house effectual under the provisions of this bill. I am going to refer to what I have said previously. I am not going to move an amendment at the moment but I would like to hear from the minister as to whether or not he will consider accepting the amendment I suggest, the purpose of which is to assure that those who live within the area in question will receive fair and reasonable compensation, and so that the valuation board will have before it in a statute the direction of parliament as to the basis upon which valuation of the stock should be made.
When the minister was speaking in committee he was asked generally as to the meaning of the bill, though the resolution was being discussed at the time. At page 44 of
no

Foot-and-mouth disease Hansard for March 3 the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was presenting his argument, and said:
In my opinion the farmers should be guaranteed the minimum compensation, and should receive that guarantee from this legislation. It is not enough to say that we will do whatever is fair and reasonable.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest that the minimum
is what is already in the act, and anything that this legislation provides is something in addition to that.


Hazen Robert Argue: In other words the minimum is $40.
That is the minimum if there is a trench dug and the carcasses are put in the trench.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the minimum. The
minimum is the commercial value of that animal, plus the $40.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course there is no commercial
value of the animal when it is in the trench. That is the whole point.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is not the interpretation.
The interpretation that is put on that, as Ontario farmers know in connection with tuberculosis, is that the animal is valued at what it would have brought if it had been delivered on the market. That is its commercial value and the $40 is paid in addition to that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, why does the minister not put
the same kind of provision in this legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is already in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. That provision is in there, and this is an addition to what is in there.
Having regard to the nature of this legislation I feel that parliament should not leave the basis upon which the value will be determined to the discretion of a board which will operate under the provisions of an order in council or under regulations passed by the governor in council. Section 2 now reads:
Notwithstanding anything in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, the Minister of Agriculture may order that fair and reasonable compensation be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease, such compensation to be determined in the manner prescribed by regulations to be made by the governor in council, and after a report by a board of valuators to be appointed by the governor in council.
As I pointed out in committee, if this legislation is to operate in addition to the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, that should be stated in the bill. Instead of using the words, "Notwithstanding anything in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act," what should be provided is this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me he is now discussing the sections of the bill, and of course that is not permissible on second reading. It should be done when the house is in committee of the whole on the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest that in view of the unusual methods we are following, I think what the hon. member has in mind is that he should not be prevented from saying what he is now saying until the bill has passed second reading. Perhaps it would be the wish of the house that the bill be given

second reading, and the member be told that it is proper to carry on that discussion in committee. Then, no one will raise any question about it. If the bill were given second reading, we could go into committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that oiie does not ordinarily refer to the sections of a bill on second reading. Generally it is the principle that is discussed. But in connection with this bill designed to meet an emergency, the rules of the house have been suspended in order to permit an early discussion and decision on this matter. It was for that reason that I was, in fact, discussing the bill as it is. However, if Your Honour rules that, even having regard to the extraordinary conditions *that prevail, the sections should not be referred to particularly, then I shall of course restrict myself to a discussion of what should be in the bill, while generally accepting the principle of the bill.
What I want to bring to the attention of the house particularly is that we join with hon. members in all parts of the house in accepting the principle of this bill. The need for expeditious action in order to meet a situation which all of us regard as most serious to the agricultural economy, and indeed the prosperity of all Canadians, is evident. The situation in the restricted area in the province of Saskatchewan requires that compensation should be paid to those who are suffering by reason of the visitation of this malady which caused damage to these people beyond anything that any of us would have contemplated a few short months ago. In arriving at a basis for compensation, my submission is that the basis should be the ordinary allowances that are provided for under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, plus something that will assure, to the farmers affected, compensation to meet those intangible losses which are difficult to cover in a statute.
Many of these farmers have built up their dairy herds, and this is particularly so having regard to the fact that the area under quarantine surrounds the city of Regina, and now find themselves in a position where not only their herds are going to be destroyed but probably their livelihood for a considerable period of time. What I have in mind is that this emergency calls for compensation to cover not only the economic value of the animals that are destroyed, but also those intangibles that were mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in the committee on the resolution, such as the prospective progeny of the animal destroyed and also an allowance in respect of the loss of income which will arise to those in the area. Many of these farmers face the future

with fear, their herds either destroyed or under a potential sentence of destruction. They ask parliament not for a handout, not for anything in the nature of charity, but for compensation for the loss which they will suffer which is more than the value of the animals in question. I feel that in the legislation there should be incorporated some provision for a yardstick which will assure that reasonable compensation without which the legislation will be ineffectual to meet the situation that prevails.
I am not going to discuss all the other matters to which reference has been made, except to say that when provision is made in the bill for compensation to those who have any buildings, fodder or grains destroyed, there should be some basis to assure that the compensation will meet the exigencies which have arisen by reason of this calamity that has struck the area. The people there face the future, not hopelessly but fearfully. They realize that they have nothing to look forward to so far as their farm operations are concerned for months ahead. They ask that, in the interpretation of the basis upon which they are to receive compensation, the spirit of their loss rather than 'the letter of the law, strictly enforced, shall form the basis for that payment.
I feel that parliament has done itself proud in the manner in which it has approached this problem. Sometimes parliament is condemned because it is ineffectual and fails to represent or spearhead the wish and desire of the nation. In the past two days, in the course of questioning and discussion, facts have been elucidated; circumstances have been reviewed; and members in all parts of this house have endeavoured to represent what parliament should normally represent, the will of the people. Speaking as one from a constituency in which part of this affected area is located, and speaking for the members from the western provinces and for my own province in particular, I say that each and every one of us in the province of Saskatchewan appreciates that feeling of fellowship and co-operation that has been evident here. We know that out of this legislation will come a new hope to the people in the areas stricken by a pestilence which is well-nigh indescribable. To the members of this house from every part of Canada, on behalf of those within that area who today are suffering from a cause over which they have no control, I know I express the sentiments of the people of the province of Saskatchewan when I say "Thank you."


Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member who gave way to me, but perhaps there is no one in
Foot-and-mouth disease Canada who has been more closely associated with this particular line of activity than has your humble servant, the member for Danforth. I am not going to delay passage of this bill and its getting into committee where it belongs, and where I perhaps might be privileged to say a word or two on clause 1. But I want td say this to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other members of this chamber. The outbreak of this disease is indeed a great tragedy and I know that the matter will be given all possible consideration.
When I have the privilege at a later stage of saying a word or two On this bill which is now going to be considered in committee, I intend to speak from the more or less humanitarian side of the matter. Having in my younger days slaughtered with my own hands 20,000 animals, I am a little bit concerned about the way things are going in other parts of this country at the moment. I mention only one name with regard to how that job of work which must be done might be carried out. I suggest the use of the humane society's Greener gun-it is a sort of [DOT]32 gun-as the animals pass down the gangplank. May I say in passing that many of us are now getting towards the end of the gangplank. I suggest passing the animals down the gangplank and destroying them humanely, as we were taught to do, instead of putting in a man with a red coat and whatnot, and shooting them indiscriminately. I would to God that I were man enough and young enough to go out and show them how to do the job, as I was privileged to do it for many years. Before this bill goes to second reading and before it gets into committee, I wanted to say that I am a little bit concerned about the way this job is being carried out. I think there is room for great improvement there. I think that is all I have to say on that phase of the matter.
The only other thing that concerns me is the tremendous waste involved in destroying all these cattle without getting anything back. I know that with the necessity of looking after everything else, the waste does not matter if we conserve the health of our people. But at the same time, in view of the millions of dollars we spend in the agriculture department, surely there should be some way of trying to avoid some of the waste which is going on when these animals are destroyed, and about which nothing is being done.
When we get into committee-and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are as anxious as the members to get into committee-I hope that some consideration will be given to these feeble observations that I have just

Foot-and-mouth disease made with respect to waste and the humanitarian side of the matter. These hands have slaughtered 20,000 horses and cattle for the reason that, with 200 men working around, you were afraid for anybody else to handle a gun. The Greener gun is the most humane thing that was ever invented. When these other 600, 700 or 1,000 cattle have to be slaughtered, I hope it will be done by somebody else than a man with a red coat sniping and not hitting his mark. That is not the way to do it. These hands know how it was done. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I express the hope to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that he will give some thought to this matter. Then if there is any possibility of any salvage from the waste, I would ask him to give some thought to that.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say something in connection with the principle of this bill. As I understand it, the principle is to make provision for adequate compensation of those who suffer losses through foot-and-mouth disease in the quarantined areas in the province of Saskatchewan. In my opinion the bill does not carry out that principle. It makes provision for adequate compensation, I believe-that is if, under the regulations under it, it is provided that the payments will be adequate-for those who actually have losses; that is, to those whose herds are infected and to those whose straw, hay, feed grain or other material may be infected. Where those are destroyed, the government can, under this bill, pay adequate compensation. But as I read the bill, no provision is made for those who may suffer losses as a result of this quarantine but who do not actually have livestock, feed, buildings or other material destroyed.
I think that the principle in the bill should be wide enough to allow the government, if they see fit-and if the board whom they appoint see fit to make such recommendations to the government-to make payments to persons other than those who may have actual property or stock destroyed. I have read with care the amendment which has been suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). We in this group can certainly support that amendment; but, in our opinion, this amendment does not go far enough to allow compensation to be paid to those who do not suffer direct losses. In the committee, when the proper clause is under consideration, it is our intention to move an amendment which will broaden the principle at present contained in the act, in order to allow the government, on the advice
[Mr. Harris (Danforth)J

of their board of valuators, to make payments to persons other than those who have actual property and stock destroyed.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that it is necessary for me or any other member of this group to hold up the passage of this bill. The bill is wide enough, or can be made wide enough by interpretation, to cover the necessary requirements for adequate compensation to be made not alone for the herds that are destroyed but, as I believe should be provided, additional compensation because of gains that might be made were it not for the destruction of the herds that will be destroyed. I hope the government will not be what we might perhaps call Scotch in dealing with this matter.


An hon. Member:: That is the wrong word.


Robert Fair: I am told that it is the wrong word to use, but just the same I think the house understands just exactly what I mean.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. It is unparliamentary.


Robert Fair: The Scots around me say that I should use the word "niggardly" instead of "Scotch".


An hon. Member:: It is the same thing.


Robert Fair: I do not know whether there is any connection between those words, but I leave it at that.
There is one point that I mentioned yesterday which I should like to stress again at this time. It is that compensation paid to those people whose herds are destroyed must be exempt from income tax. Yesterday I pointed out that people whose herds are destroyed will suffer sufficient losses. The compensation received will be only the return of capital. After a sufficient time has elapsed to show that the danger of foot-and-mouth disease is removed the farmer will reinvest the compensation that he will receive to get back into business. I repeat that the farmer whose herds are being destroyed and who will receive compensation will suffer sufficient loss because of the destruction of his herd to get, without demanding, exemption from income tax on these amounts.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the principle of this bill. As on the resolution stage, I was very happy to hear the minister say that the matter of delay and so on would be thoroughly investigated by the agriculture committee of this House of Commons, where we can hear the officials of the department and of the health services branch. That is

Foot-and-mouth disease
very important, and could be useful to the cattle producers of this country.
As to the bill itself, I do not believe it is broad enough or definite enough. Certainly, it is in general terms. Again I want to point out that in setting up his committee on valuation the minister should have provided for producer representation. The representative should be one who has been versed in the production of purebred livestock. That is very important. I am not finding fault with the standing or reputation of any member of that board, but as I understand it, there is not one on that board who has been associated with the breeding and production of purebred livestock in this country. Along with others, the minister himself has pointed out that some of these herds that are to be destroyed are show herds, herds that a man has spent a great many years in developing and building up until today he has a herd of purebred cattle.
That brings me to the point just raised by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). It is important that the Department of National Revenue enter into this matter as well, because, with respect to dairy herds as well as purebred herds, farmers have spent years in building them up. Their whole source of income is embodied in that herd of cattle. If the herd is destroyed and the farmers are compensated for their loss and taxed under the ordinary set-up today they will be paying much more than they should, and that would make it much more difficult for those who wish to start in the same line of business again. It is important that consideration be given to that matter.
I am sorry at this time that other provision has not been made to guarantee the future of this great cattle industry in some way. I listened to the news broadcast at six o'clock tonight and I heard that in my own province one-third of the employees of the great packing industry in that province have received notice that they will be laid off. I must say that I was a bit surprised at the action taken yesterday by the government of my own province. Probably they have felt that they were forced into it, because I understood they were going to co-operate very closely with the federal authorities; but when they were questioned yesterday on their announcement, the provincial minister of agriculture said that they had decided to act on their own to protect the province of Manitoba and the producers there. To pass regulations under which cattle and meat cannot be imported into that province, cannot even be moved through the province without special permission, is rather severe. I understand that British Columbia produces about
10 per cent of the meat that is normally consumed in that province. In a few days, in this great country, there will develop a situation such as I never dreamed could happen under any consideration whatever. As I see it, we are now going to have a different set of prices in the different provinces of this country for beef and meats, depending on the production within those provinces. I never imagined that the various provinces would place embargoes to the extent that they have done. It will create difficulties. Some provinces that have a great surplus of meat production will be in this position. The producers of those provinces in all likelihood will not receive the average price that they would if we had the understanding throughout this dominion that we should have. On the other hand, in other provinces where the shortage exists the consumers will probably be forced to pay a great deal more for the meat than they should pay. Therefore I hope that the minister or the federal government will take some means of consulting, or having a meeting, with those provincial representatives as soon as possible to bring about a common understanding in the interests of both the meat producers and the consumers of this great nation of ours.
It is very important. I know this thing has happened in a hurry. That meeting should be held as soon as possible. Again I return to this great cattle industry into which many people have put their life savings. The strides in development that have been made in purebred herds in this country in the past few years have been astonishing. These people are discouraged today. This is not only a severe blow to the agricultural industry of this country, but it will affect the entire economy of the nation, because agriculture, apart from beef production, had been slipping pretty fast in the past few months. The income in other branches of agriculture has been dropping while the cost of production has been increasing consistently. According to the federal bureau of statistics, they estimate an increase of at least 5 per cent or more in the general cost of production on the farms this year, but when you think of the whole picture and that the one branch of agriculture where there was some revenue left, and which many farmers were using in order to carry on the other operations of their farms, was the cattle industry, and when you see that jeopardized to the extent it has been today, you have some idea of the extremely difficult position in which it places agriculture almost overnight. All of the predictions that have been set forth by the federal bureau of statistics and by the current issue of the agricultural review, prophesying what should happen in the year 1952 in so far as

Foot-and-mouth disease the farmers of this country are concerned, do not hold good any more because of what has occurred in the last few days. Therefore I think it is most essential that the government as a whole should take immediate action to give hope to those cattle producers so that they do not unnecessarily decide to go out of business. In the interests of the producers and of the economy of this country that is vitally important, Mr. Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the second reading of this bill. My colleague the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has just placed our views before the house. We are happy to support the bill; we are happy to support the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker); and we would like to see the bill extended so that all those who suffered loss on account of action made necessary by the disease in the area affected will receive compensation.
But the point that was raised by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) should be pressed upon the government and the government should take note of it, namely, the serious result to the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan on account of the embargoes imposed by the neighbouring provinces on the passage of livestock, meat and so on through their provinces and emphasized by the announcement made by the government of Manitoba today. I want to say this to the federal government: under our legislation, when a dangerous disease is found anywhere in Canada and animals must be slaughtered and farmers compensated, it is the federal authority which has to assume responsibility and provide compensation for any losses that ensue. Consequently it seems to me that the action by certain provinces is a matter which should be carefully looked into by the government and the Department of Justice, so that the constitutional position of the dominion and the provinces may be reviewed carefully. Because I can foresee that if this is allowed to continue, and if cattle and other products from Alberta and Saskatchewan are stopped from moving across the country under conditions which are considered by the federal authority to remove any possibility of the spreading of the disease, two things will happen: first of all, the producers in the two western provinces will be cut off from any market. The result will be disastrous not only to those producers but to the whole of Canada.
The second point is this, that supplies of food for British Columbia as well as for the central and eastern provinces are to some


extent-and quite largely now, in some respects-dependent upon the movement of supplies from the two prairie provinces. I do not think the government can allow the stoppages to go unchallenged. I think the government has to take its responsibility. It must go into this matter very carefully indeed and see to it that the basis of confederation is maintained. And, as I understand it, that basis was that there would be a free flow of commodities without let or hindrance among all the provinces of Canada.
Since, as I say, the federal parliament- and I use the word "parliament" instead of "government"-assumes the responsibility in cases of this kind for the compensation of the owners of diseased animals, and for taking the necessary steps to deal generally with such situations, it seems to me that the provinces recognize that, at least financially, all matters affecting the disease of animals are a federal responsibility. And if that is so, then it seems that since the federal authority quarantines, and takes all the responsibility for assistance under such circumstances, the provinces are usurping the rights of this parliament and of the federal authority in preventing the flow of supplies, under proper conditions of inspection, and guarantee of good health, among the provinces. They are usurping the rights of this parliament in preventing the flow across this country of commodities that should have the right to move from one end of the country to the other.
I am hesitant to say that, but I think someone has to say it. Perhaps it will be said immediately that my views are those of one who believes in the centralization of authority in the federal parliament. I do not believe in that. As a matter of fact, I believe that the basis of democracy lies in a maximum of local self-government as it exists in the municipality, the province and so on. But I do believe this, that under the federal system agreed upon in 1867 we must beware lest people in one part of Canada-in this instance in two of the prairie provinces-be penalized because of actions that are beyond the constitutional right of the provinces as set forth in the British North America Act.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe the views I have expressed as a layman are sound views. They are in the interests of all Canada. And I believe further that in the interests of all Canada the federal government must take notice of the situation and take such action as may be appropriate at this time.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, like, I am sure, everyone in the

house, I am interested to see this legislation passed immediately for the relief of those who are our fellow citizens and who are facing what may be a terrible disaster- although we may still hope that the effects are not as great as our worst forebodings might indicate.
But the fact that we want to act immediately does not I think mean that we should cast aside all regard for careful scrutiny of this legislation. There is one point in connection with the proposed bill which should be brought to the attention of the house, because it seems to me that it is just a continuation of the kind of thing that goes on here so often, whereby parliament becomes just a rubber stamp to give wide-open powers to the executive.
I wish to draw attention to the tenor of the clause; I would draw attention to what we are asked to do. We are asked to authorize the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to pay fair and reasonable compensation prescribed by regulations to be made by the governor in council, after a report by a board of valuators to be appointed by the governor in council. All parliament is to do is to give this wide-open power.
Now, it was not always so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And vote the money.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have before me the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, apparently passed in 1927. It would seem that at that time parliament thought it well to indicate certain figures that were to guide the executive in the discharge of their duty. But now, apparently, the thing must be left wide open.
I suppose the logical outcome of all this, if one wanted to go into the logic of the matter, would be that we should reach the stage where all parliament would be doing would be to pass two or three wide-open measures giving the executive power to do everything. I would point out two or three attractive features of that type of legislation. First of all, it saves a lot of thinking and hard work. No one would have to think through what was going to happen with the passing of legislation. One would just say that whatever the minister considers fair and reasonable could be done-and you put in some broad provisions so that anything can be done. And, as I say, in the second place it avoids all the hard work and it avoids thinking it through, as we used to have to do, because it gives wide-open powers to the executive.
Now, that is from the point of view of parliament. There is going to be something
Foot-and-mouth disease done, and we all want to have it done; but I still maintain it is unfortunate if it is to be done in this wide-open and loose fashion. If the amendment offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is accepted, then it will go some distance at any rate toward curing the situation. So much for the point of view of parliament.
Let us now take a moment to look at the point of view of those who are to be compensated. I suppose city dwellers, like myself, feel that farming, even at best, is a most hazardous occupation. It seems to me that the hazards of farming are accentuated on the western prairies, and therefore one feels more than anxious that the right thing should be done. But, after all, those who are to be compensated are given no assurance and no indication as to how the compensation is to be given.
As the hon. member for Lake Centre pointed out, there is a commercial value, an economic value, and then what the Minister of Agriculture called the intangible. All the farmer has left, the only reassurance he has, is that the minister will do what is fair and reasonable. That, of course, has the disadvantage that it leaves the situation open to our old friends, lobbying and discrimination.
The minister gave us a very soothing description yesterday of what would happen. He said one test case would be settled, and apparently that would settle everything. He indicated that there would be a well-established rule, a rule established in that first case, and that everything would follow on from there. I am not so sure about that; on that I say no more. I merely point out that the result of this legislation is that what is going to accrue to the farmer is not going to come from parliament: it will come from the executive. It will be the executive who will determine what shall be done, because it has these wide-open powers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will come from the
taxpayers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, and I am glad to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) say that, because sometimes I feel he does not realize that there are taxpayers at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He realizes it far better than my hon. friend does.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Sometimes I think the Minister of Finance is just in business, like anybody else.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is doing all right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, the minister and I will discuss the taxpayers

Foot-and-mouth disease later on. I shall come back to that. I was just about to say, when the minister was kind enough to interrupt, that I do feel this thing is left on an unsound basis. I do not believe that merely because we wish to act promptly there was any need to move this wide-open and negligent piece of legislation, however fashionable it may have become in this parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I listened with -a great deal of interest this evening to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I felt that he gave us a most comprehensive review of what is necessary to be done in order to compensate adequately the farmers in the quarantine area. I agree that the government should accept the amendments he suggested. They would improve the bill immensely as they would spell out something more precise in the way of compensation and would guarantee, subject to the findings of the board of evaluators, an economic or replacement value for the livestock which has had to be slaughtered.
I think the suggestion that this measure should provide compensation in addition to that already provided in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act is a good one. That additional compensation should be sufficient to provide replacement of the livestock that have to be slaughtered. But even though the government should accept these amendments, it still leaves out entirely 99 per cent of the farmers in that quarantine area whose income will also be affected. There are some two thousand farmers within the quarantine area. Some twenty farmers have had their livestock afflicted with this disease, but any farmer who has any livestock at all stands to lose because of the quarantine.
Everything said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) about the action taken by the provinces is absolutely correct. If this government has certain powers under the constitution, as I believe it has, it should not stand idly by and let one province after another encroach on the powers of the federal government to the detriment of the citizens of other provinces. The whole surplus beef area of western Canada is being blocked off from the markets in the rest of Canada. Quite apart from the results of foot-and-mouth disease, there has been a drop of $10 per hundredweight in the price of beef during the last few months. I noticed from the Winnipeg Free Press of a few days ago that cattle were being quoted on that market at $24.50 per hundredweight for choice steers, down $10 during the last few months. If the government does not take action to provide a floor under the price of

beef, livestock prices will continue to go down and particularly in Saskatchewan, when the packing plants are reopened.
I submit that the government should consider appointing a controller to administer proper floor prices and to see that the packers pay proper floor prices. The farmer who produces beef should be maintained in production. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Battle River, the floor price should be to the producer and not to the packer, as has always been the case in the past with government floor prices.
This is a national emergency but this bill does not prove to me that the government believes it to be a national emergency. Nothing is being done to stabilize livestock prices throughout Canada. Nothing is being done by the government to stop the balkanization of Canada, as the action taken by different provinces has been called. It is time the government appointed a controller and fixed a decent and adequate floor under beef prices.
I hope the government will keep in mind that the income of farmers other than those who are directly affected by the disease is being curtailed. What about the farmer with perhaps fifty head of beef cattle who lives in the quarantine area? He is not able to market those cattle although some of them may be of market weight. There is no guarantee as to how long he will have to maintain those cattle on his farm before being able to realize any income from them. These farmers will not be able to move catle from one quarter-section of land to another. There are community pastures in the area, but farmers are going to be short of pasture because the regulations prevent the free movement of cattle within the area.
All this constitutes a serious problem. It is likely to mean serious losses to the cattle raisers within the quarantine area. I am glad that the minister has stated that this question will be referred to the committee on agriculture. A number of accusations have been hurled at the government yesterday and today as to who was to blame for not having reported the disease sooner, for not having diagnosed it sooner, and so forth. That is all past history. I believe the main thing the farmers of western Canada are interested in now is having this committee examine all aspects of the program to be carried out and the compensation to be paid to the beef industry.
I suggest to the minister that the members of this committee should be allowed to consider all aspects of this problem, both past and future. There will be a loss of income, at least temporarily to all beef producers within

Foot-and-mouth disease
that quarantine area and farmers who are now unable to market their grain will also face possible loss. As I have said already, a large proportion of that grain is damp and is in danger of spoiling. The whole economy within that quarantine area is now tied up. These farmers are going to need cash for seeding operations to carry out summer fallowing and to take care of their livestock from now until the market opens.
In addition to the duties proposed to be given to this board under the bill I suggest that further duties should be given to it, or perhaps to an administrator, so that there will be some body within that area representing the federal government which will have authority to advance money to farmers who cannot obtain any income because they cannot market either their livestock or their grain. Some compensation should be paid to the cattle producers who are unable to market their cattle at the present time, as has been paid to the hog producers. The hog producers are going to be permitted to increase the weight of marketable hogs from 200 pounds to 300 pounds, 400 pounds or more without any penalty because of overweight when those hogs are marketed. But what about a farmer who has six or eight beef steers ready for the market? He cannot market those steers; he has to provide them with feed day after day, week after week as long as the quarantine lasts. That farmer is unable to realize any money from his livestock and is placed under additional expense because of the quarantine. So I say that in this measure the government should not only spell out the compensation for farmers whose animals are affected; it should not only pay the economic or replacement value of all animals slaughtered; it should also provide compensation for those other farmers whose income is adversely affected. In addition the government should not hesitate to establish a fair floor price under cattle throughout Canada. Unless the government acts now and provides an adequate floor price, in my opinion it will not have played fair with the livestock industry of this country.


Mr. W. F. Carroll (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take very much time to discuss this matter, because I believe the discussion should be confined within a very small compass. Times like these impress upon the people of this country the fact that when an emergency develops in any part of Canada, this parliament representing the whole of this country is always ready, willing and anxious to give assistance.
This bill does not deal with the right of the provinces to interfere with the transportation of livestock from one province to another. That is a constitutional matter. If those who have beef cattle, swine or anything else to export to other provinces are in any way hindered by the authorities of those provinces, it is up to them to get out and ascertain whether or not the provinces have the right to do that. I am not entering into a discussion of that question. Neither does this bill propose to stabilize any industry in this country. It only proposes to render compensation to those unfortunate people in the west who must have their herds slaughtered or their buildings destroyed because of this awful disease.
This method of rendering assistance in an emergency of this kind, by way of legislation, is something new in this country. When we had the tremendous tragedies of the Red river, the Fraser river and Rimouski, those matters were brought before the house under special circumstances, and parliament dealt with them and provided assistance. The farmers of this country are in a somewhat different category, and I think properly so. Many years ago the Animal Contagious Diseases Act provided compensation to farmers whose livestock had to be destroyed because of disease. I am presuming that before introducing the resolution on which this bill is founded the minister came to the conclusion that the remuneration provided under that legislation was not sufficient to cover the loss being suffered in the west today; and I think perhaps that is fair.
Until a moment ago I thought my good friend from Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was going to introduce an amendment to this bill. This legislation deals only with two principles, or as a matter of fact only one principle. It deals with the method by which these people in the west whose livestock must be slaughtered are to be compensated. In the second place it deals with those people whose grain or buildings may be destroyed, and how they are to be compensated. I have great admiration for the good old principles of the common law in the matter of damages, and in my opinion the minister is bringing this legislation squarely within those principles.
How is compensation given? Under the common law in our courts, or in some instances under statutes which amend the common law, the basis is fair and reasonable compensation for the loss sustained by those bringing the action. That is what I mean by saying the minister has brought this legislation squarely within the principles of
118	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease common law as far as compensation is concerned. The hon. member for Lake Centre suggested an amendment to state definitely how those damages should be assessed. I do not know any method more just, fair and equitable than under the principles of common law, which are incorporated in this bill as "fair and reasonable".
What does fair and reasonable mean? If certain animals are to be slaughtered which have some value apart from their commercial value, under this bill I believe additional compensation must be granted if the board is to be fair in the matter. For [DOT]example, if a man drove an automobile through one of the farm districts in Saskatchewan and ran down five or six purebred cattle, he would be responsible for damages, not only to the extent of the commercial value of those animals but for what might be their additional value in future. So it seems to me this bill is being absolutely fair as far as compensation is concerned.
Something was said about the board. In this case the board is a jury. If I were appointing that jury I would not have it made up entirely of government officials. Neither would I have it made up entirely of farmers interested in this matter. That, however, is a matter for the minister, and I have no doubt in the world that this board will deal fairly and equitably with those interested. If I have a fear about this matter at all, Mr. Speaker, my fear would be that, looking over the history of the minister who has charge of agriculture in this country, he would be inclined to allow too great damages to the people in the west. Down through the years he has always championed the grain growers. A few years ago we threw out $65 million, I shall not say to pacify the grain growers or anything like that, but that is what they were given. However, I have no fear that will be the case. I know the minister is honest and honourable; that he will do the right thing. If the board does not do the right thing, then I know the minister will rectify it.
If any serious objections are made by the farmers of the west who are seeking damages for slaughtered animals or the loss of their grain, I shall be the first to bring this matter before the House of Commons or assist in having it brought before the house to make sure that they get fair and equitable treatment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not
need to repeat what has been frequently said during the course of the discussion about the extent to which this calamity concerns all of


us in Canada, no matter from what part of the country we may come. It is not necessary to repeat that concern now, but simply to say for one's self that one shares profoundly that feeling.
At the moment, sir, we are concerned with the principle of the bill. I should like to make this observation in general about the bill, Mr. Speaker. It has all the earmarks of being very hastily drawn. I am not going to be unduly critical of the government simply because the bill has been hastily drawn. It seems as though the subject has seized the government's attention in the serious way that it should for only a short time, and the bill seems to have been drafted with great haste.
It is regrettable in the first place, sir, that the terms of the bill are so nebulous, and also that it has the vice which so much government legislation has, that it confers powers upon the government without at the same time defining the rights of those whom parliament is seriously trying to help. One great and patent shortcoming of this bill, it seems to me, is that it does not adequately define the rights of those whom we are trying to help, namely those farmers whose possessions, whether in the form of livestock, buildings or other forms, are going to be affected, and others as well as the farmers who happen to be the owners of cattle or property affected.
It seems to me it is quite proper to give approval to the principle of this bill, as everyone who has spoken in this debate on second reading has done, and at the same time to be critical of the shortcomings of the bill in giving effect to a sound principle. The sound principle obviously is that in a national calamity of this kind, comparable with others that parliament has recognized, parliament should put the resources of the country into the breach. Let us look at this bill first of all in the terms of the scope of the principle, to ascertain the scope within which the sound principle is permitted to operate.
I point out in the first place that the bill gives recognition to claims only on the part of those who are owners of animals, fodder, grain or other things that are ordered to be destroyed. No one derives any compensation under the provisions of this bill unless either his animals, his buildings, his fodder or his grain or something, presumably some physical thing owned by him, is destroyed. It seems to me, on the face of it, that is a very inadequate scope to be given to the sound principle that all members have supported in the course of this debate.

Now, what about many others whose rights are going to be affected by the exercise of the rights conferred by this bill upon the minister or the rights conferred by the Animal Contagious Diseases Act upon the government, whose cattle are not going to be slaughtered, whose buildings, fodder or grain are not going to be destroyed. I venture to say that before this calamity has passed, important as will be the losses sustained by those whose cattle, buildings, fodder or grain will have been destroyed under the powers given by this bill, a greater aggregate loss is going to be sustained by those whose cattle and property will not have been destroyed. This bill makes no provision whatever for compensation for those persons. If we recognize, as I think all members do, that this is a national calamity and that parliament should act in the national interest, by what authority do we draw a line and say that compensation shall be given only to those whose cattle, buildings, fodder or grain are destroyed? What about those whose rights are very seriously curtailed, and whose property is seriously diminished in value by the exercise by the minister of the powers given to him under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act?
There are these sweeping quarantine orders, the effects of which are already being felt seriously and will continue to be felt by many farmers and many other persons in western Canada whose animals will not have been slaughtered or whose buildings, fodder or grain will not have been destroyed. It seems to me that, examined in the light of that principle, the scope of this bill is altogether inadequate. I urge upon the government, because it is only the government that can introduce a measure of this kind, to give the bill the scope it requires. I urge upon the government that it should extend the scope of the bill. It is not within the power of any private member in this house to introduce an amendment which will have the effect of increasing the expenditure through the avenue of compensation. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this situation it is the clear duty of the government to widen the scope of the bill so that those who are going to feel the effects of this bill, perhaps to the extent of serious losses by the exercise by the minister of his powers under this bill and the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, will also be entitled to compensation.
There is another aspect that does require serious attention on the part of the house, and it was stressed by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in what he had to say this evening as well as at earlier stages in the debate on this measure. I wish
Foot-and-mouth disease I could share the enthusiasm and the confidence of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond who has just spoken for the bill and approved the scope it limits for the compensation to be awarded to those who come within the limited classes of persons who are given any right to compensation under the bill. I am sorry that I cannot share the confidence that he has expressed in connection with the adequacy of the provision made by this bill.
I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the relationship of this bill to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act is not adequately defined in this bill; that subject is left high in the air. The only provision we have here for linking together the two measures, and for making clear the relationship of this bill to the main act is in provisions which, in setting out the limited classes of persons who are to be entitled to compensation under this act, are prefaced only by the terms that the bill applies notwithstanding anything contained in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
I think that any hon. members of the house who have given study to the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act cannot be satisfied with the limited provisions of that kind. In this bill we have not enough to make clear the relationship of right to compensation contemplated by this bill to the provisions of the main act. I invite hon. members of the house, before they reach any conclusions with regard to this bill, to study carefully the provisions of sections 13 and 14 of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and indeed section 15 as well. There they will see that that act has quite definite and limiting terms in relation to any right of compensation and in fixing the value of animals which are slaughtered under the provisions of its terms. I wonder if the minister has considered the fact that the Animal Contagious Diseases Act applies to what is done under the provisions of that act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It occurs to me that the hon. member is going into details as to the quantum of damages, and the basis upon which the damages will be fixed. If that is so, it occurs to me that that discussion would be more proper when the section is before the committee. At the present time the house is dealing with the principle of the bill, which is with respect to the slaughtering of certain animals and the compensation. The amount of compensation is a matter of detail which should be discussed in committee.
While I am on my feet may I also say that a number of hon. members have referred to general floor prices on agricultural products.

Foot-and-mouth disease beef in particular being mentioned; and other hon. members have referred to interprovincial trade. I do not see anything within the principle of this bill which allows such a discussion at this time. I did not stop the hon. members but I think I should bring that fact to the attention of the house. At the present time we are dealing with the principle of this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was not dealing with any details of the bill. I was dealing with the principle of the bill and what to me were inadequacies in general in this bill in relation to the principle. I was addressing myself to the argument just advanced to the house by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll) who was at some pains to argue that the basis of compensation provided by this bill is adequate and in keeping with the principles of the common law. It was that argument in particular with which I was dealing, Mr. Speaker, without going into questions as to the specific details of compensation to be awarded.
I will not be long on the subject, but I was drawing to the attention of the minister the fact-which I do not think has been clearly recognized as yet in the discussion- that this bill makes provision, with regard to compensation for those whose animals are slaughtered, for slaughtering carried out under the provisions of this act. That provision will not bring any comfort at all to those who suffer losses as the result of acts performed under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that before we have left this subject we shall have to have a much clearer definition than is now provided for the determination of the relationship between those two measures.
As to the contention of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond with regard to the recognition given by this act, in its essential principles, to the provisions of the common law, may I say this. With great respect for the hon. member-and I am sure everyone in this house has great respect for his legal learning-I argue that this bill does not justify that confidence. This bill does not give adequate effect to a proper principle. What adequacy can there be in compensation defined by this act with respect to individual animals, individual buildings or individual quantities of fodder or grain? That is what this bill deals with. This bill does not seek to deal with the situation where compensation can be awarded, in my submission, only on the basis of someone being in business as most of those whose property will be

destroyed under this act or the main act undoubtedly will be. It is one thing to take away an individual animal from a man and pay him adequate compensation for it; but, sir, it is an entirely different thing to destroy his whole herd, his whole physical capital. Compensation to be awarded on the basis of individual animals destroyed cannot possibly compensate a man whose whole herd is destroyed under conditions like that.
There is no provision here for principles such as those which are recognized under other federal legislation such as the Expropriation Act. There is no recognition here of the right of any person affected by this act to some specific compensation for forcible taking. This is not the case at all of the farmer marketing his own animals in his own way. This is the case of the government intervening, in the exercise of special powers conferred by extraordinary measures of this kind, and simply at one swoop taking his herd or his properties away from him. That is an entirely different situation from the one that is contemplated in the compensation sections of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; and, with respect, I submit it is a different one from that provided for under the compensation provisions in this bill.
Only the government can introduce in this house amendments which will give to the principle of this measure the broadening effects which are necessary to provide for the persons in the categories recognized here an adequate measure or basis of compensation. "Fair and reasonable compensation" does not adequately define the type of compensation which should be recognized in this measure. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has pointed out that it should not be left to rest within the judgment or discretion of a minister of the crown, even with the assistance of a board of valuators. What is required here is a much broader definition of, first of all, the categories of persons who are to receive a right to compensation under this act and, in the second place, a much wider definition of what it is for which compensation is to be provided.
This bill needs something in the way of a definite provision for rights of compensation on the part of those who may suffer loss or damage for, or by reason of, or in consequence of any act done or performed under the provisions of this legislation, or under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
I say again that no private member of this house is permitted under the rules of the house, or under the provisions of the British

North America Act, to introduce the type of amendment that is required to give adequate effect to the principle of this legislation which we are now discussing. That burden and that responsibility rest on the government, and I urge upon the government to give adequate recognition to a principle which I think has been supported by all members of this house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, already you have indicated that there may be some difficulty in defining the exact points within which discussion should take place under the measure now bef ore us, and perhaps that difficulty in itself is emphasized by the wording which describes the legislation itself. It is described as:
An act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease.
That is not what the legislation really is. That starts us off on a very difficult beginning. The control of foot-and-mouth disease is something that could have been carried out by the department if it had been doing its duty under existing laws. This is really legislation to give authority to the government to slaughter such animals as it believes should be slaughtered under these circumstances, and to provide a measure of recompense for the slaughtered animals. I am mentioning this at the outset because some of the remarks I propose to make are directed to the suggestion that this bill should be much wider than it now Is, and I would hope that consideration would still be given at this time to the widening of this bill to recognize that this problem is not simply one of paying adequate money to those whose animals are of necessity slaughtered; but that there are many other things that must be done if those who may suspect that there is foot-and-mouth disease on their farms are to be encouraged to report at the earliest possible moment.
That is what should be encouraged in every way within the power of the government and of parliament. As has been well pointed out already by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the remarks which he has made on this bill, the real purpose which should be in mind is to encourage in every way possible the closest and most effective co-operation between the farmers themselves and the various representatives of the government in whose hands this responsibility rests.
I do want to speak just for a moment about something that was mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he spoke a short time ago with regard to this bill. He spoke of the concern that
Foot-and-mouth disease he felt about the fact that here within this country provincial governments are setting up barriers which in effect may prevent that free movement between provinces which has been regarded as one of the essential requirements of a single and united nation. I suggest that the only reason that the provinces have found it desirable and necessary to place embargoes on the movement of cattle is that they are so convinced that this government has fallen down on its job that they are not going to take chances on continuing carelessness in this government in dealing with this serious matter. I suggest that if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had told hon. members what he could have told the house he would have been able to tell them why it was that the province of Quebec had acted so quickly. The information I have is that there were very definite reasons why the province of Quebec acted as quickly as they did. And in relation to that I would point out that no satisfactory answer has yet been given to the questions which have been asked about the reasons for the embargo placed on importation of cattle from the United States. In reporting the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday the Canadian Press indicated that the consensus was that this was not intended really as a barrier on the movement of cattle from the United States so much as it was intended as a device to force the provinces into submission to the wish of the Minister of Agriculture that they should abandon their embargoes. Not by one word, not by one suggestion, has the Minister of Agriculture attempted to remove the impression conveyed in the report carried yesterday in the Canadian Press dispatch. On the contrary there is very much to support that statement in what has been said here.
When he was challenged in regard to the danger that might be inherent in placing an embargo on the importation of cattle from the United States at a time when we were seeking their co-operation to be permitted to export cattle there as soon as possible, the Minister of Agriculture said last night in this house that really this did not mean a thing; that after all the United States was not going to be exporting cattle into Canada. He said in as clear words as he could possibly have used that, so far as the United States was concerned, it was not intended as an embargo. He knew perfectly well that, with the loss in value of animals in this country, there is going to be no substantial importation in any event of cattle from the United States at the prices that still obtain in that country. He recognizes, however, that the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec particularly, which do not produce the number of animals required for

Foot-and-mouth disease their needs, would be looking to the United States and to those boundary states from which they have been in the habit of drawing animals in times past, and that this embargo on the exportation from these states would be a very serious matter for the provinces in this country that found it necessary to import.
Unless there is some explanation given before we pass from second reading of this bill, no matter what the principle of it is, we pass it with the knowledge that in the various explanations which have been given we have really been told that this embargo is nothing but a club to force the provinces into submission. That suggestion carried by the Canadian Press is supported by the words used this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture. He said, "Unfortunately some of the provinces have placed embargoes on the movement of cattle." "Unfortunately" is the word he used. He makes it clear that he does not want those embargoes, and I am sure most members of the house do not want to see embargoes. But we must remember that agriculture is one of the two things in the British North America Act made the subject of equal and co-ordinate jurisdiction. Agriculture is just as much within the hands of the provinces as it is within the hands of the dominion government.
Where the dominion government has failed to do its duty, as it has in this case, and where the dominion government has been guilty of the grossest negligence, as it has in this case, and where it has failed to do the things that should have been done to protect agricultural production in this country from this dreadful disease, and the spreading of it, then I submit the provinces of Canada, the provincial governments of this country, would be negligent in their duty if they failed to take whatever steps they regarded as proper to prevent the spread of the disease at a time when the dominion government was failing to carry out its duties in any very noticeable way.
May I qualify that statement only to this extent, that not one of us in the house wants barriers of this kind erected between provinces. Not one of us in the house wants to see established as a precedent the placing of any sort of impediment in the way of the free movement of agricultural or any other products within the boundaries of Canada as a nation. Nevertheless we must recognize the very natural concern in the minds of those who comprise the governments of the various provinces, and in the minds of the


officials of the provincial departments of agriculture, when they see that it takes the dominion government three months to diagnose a disease which every qualified veterinarian knows to be one of the dangerous diseases, and against which we should be on guard at all times.
I am not suggesting that this is not a difficult disease to diagnose. It is. That is taught in the veterinary colleges in this country. And in passing may I say there are no better veterinary colleges in the world than those in Canada. That is amply demonstrated by the fact that if anyone goes to a veterinary college in this country he will find in it young men from the United States, from South America, from Europe and other countries, who have come here because of the high standing of our colleges. The graduates of those colleges could diagnose this and other diseases. They are capable of doing it.
This disease is not something that creeps up on us in the night without warning as to its possibilities. On this continent it is a disease which has been guarded against with the utmost care. This disease has been endemic in Europe for many years. It is a disease that is rarely completely eradicated in many of the nations of Europe. That is particularly true after a great disturbance of population and of animals such as takes place in any major war of the kind that took place only a few years ago. But it has not been endemic either in the United States or in Canada. There was an outbreak in the United States some years ago, and in Canada we took great care to prevent its coming into this country.
But can we imagine any Canadian having much confidence if he were taught to believe that there is nothing surprising about taking three months to diagnose the disease? There would be little chance of protecting the borders of this country if in fact that were the actual situation. But there is not one of us who does not know that that is not so. And this is particularly true of the Minister of Agriculture.
In the 1942 Year Book of Agriculture, a United States publication, we find, in an article entitled "Keep Livestock Healthy", the following observations:
Humanj beings are next in importance to infected animals and animal products as agents responsible for the spread of the disease. It is generally believed that human beings convey the virus mechanically on the clothing or person.
In other words, in 1942 and in years long before that, it was recognized that next to the carriage of the disease by animals themselves, the clothing and belongings of human

beings were the most likely mechanical means by which this disease could be transported.
What has happened here? The Minister of Agriculture on different occasions during this debate, with that skilful distracting of attention which is one of his most noticeable characteristics in debate, suggested that some of the things that were being said would be inclined to alarm the people of this country. I say nothing that has been said here could alarm the people of this country nearly as much as has the negligence of the government. What has been said here has been said in an attempt to get some real assurance that the government not only recognizes its failure in this instance, but will make sure that similar failures will not occur elsewhere. But we have had no assurance of that-none whatever, not the slightest. On the contrary, we have had expressions of satisfaction to the effect that everything had been done.
Every member in the house should be greatly alarmed by the fact that the government has given no indication that it is learning from this disastrous lesson, and that it is going to take better methods for detecting this disease in other areas, if such outbreaks should occur. The minister said some of the dramatic statements that were made might cause alarm. What could be more dramatic than the cloak-and-dagger stories that were appearing as to the mounted police following this blond German back and forth across the country? Why, you had all the atmosphere of a dime thriller in the stories that were appearing when, it was said, the mounted police had traced him to Port Arthur. Then they thought he was on the way to Montreal, that he was somewhere in eastern Canada- and he was taken in Vancouver!
One question was not answered today. The Minister of Agriculture said that he would not want to use the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. . Diefenbaker) was pointing out that steps should have been taken much more quickly and more vigorously to obtain the information that was so greatly needed. No, they did not want to use the mounted police -but they had them chasing all over the country for one single German immigrant from Westphalia, who was welcomed by some inspector. He was brought over here, apparently, without much examination of his clothing, his intentions or anything else. And I say "his intentions" designedly.
Is it possible that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were brought into this for some reason other than the fear of disease? There were others who could have examined his clothing. The immigration branch has
Foot-and-mouth disease authority to do that. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration could have done a number of things to check this man. Is it possible that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were interested in more than his clothing? If so, we should know it; because part of the trouble we have here if, in fact, this man was a carrier, is the careless manner in which so much of the immigration into this country has been handled within these last few months. Since this bill was introduced yesterday by consent we have been seeking to obtain some assurance from the government that it recognized the failure of its system and would give us assurances, which we as members have a right and, what is more, a solemn duty to demand in the face of a disaster of this kind.
This is something that we can find covered in authoritative books. May I quote again from the same textbook to which I have already referred, the 1942 Year Book of Agriculture, as follows:
Failure to recognize the disease when it exists might permit the extensive spread of the malady, perhaps to such a point that even radical methods would not eliminate it or would do so only at very great cost. On the other hand, to make an incorrect diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease would mean unnecessarily imposing severe and costly quarantines and restrictions, locally, nationally, and internationally, in addition to needless slaughter of animals. In the United States, therefore, extreme caution is used in making a diagnosis.
That statement may be taken as indicating why the government should act with the utmost care before declaring that this is foot-and-mouth disease. Most certainly they should. And because they should is all the more reason why in no single case where one of the diseases so similar in symptoms is found should there be any doubt of any kind that it is not foot-and-mouth disease. They did not take steps in this case to remove that doubt. Let me quote further from this same textbook, as follows:
Only two other diseases cause inflammatory changes in the mucous membranes of the mouth or the skin of the feet or both in cattle, swine, sheep, goats, and other cloven-hoofed animals sufficiently similar to those of foot-and-mouth disease to give the experienced observer difficulty in establishing a diagnosis. These are the virus diseases, vesicular stomatitis and vesicular exanthema of swine.
That textbook states simply that there are only three diseases which are similar and which cause inflammatory changes in the mucous membranes of the mouth or the skin of the feet or both in cattle, swine, sheep, goats and other cloven-footed animals. The very fact that such care is taken to guard against this disease indicates the reason why every possible precaution should be taken
124	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease where symptoms of this kind, that is, inflammatory changes in the mucous membranes of the mouth or skin of the feet of these animals, appear and not one chance taken that it may be foot-and-mouth disease.
As has been pointed out, and very obviously, what has happened has happened. Nothing we say here is going to change the fact that there is foot-and-mouth disease. What we are concerned about now is to be sure that those who discover the possibility of this disease are encouraged to disclose it and that every possible step is taken to prevent its spread elsewhere and in that way to assure the earliest possible detection.
When we realize that the elimination of this disease depends very largely on the prompt co-operation of the farmers themselves, we must admit that the bill should provide for whatever monetary loss is going to occur, in so far as is reasonably possible, to the farmers who may have this disease on their property. For that reason the bill should provide that payment should be made on the basis of the real economic value of the animal and that under no circumstances should it diminish the amount that would be paid under existing legislation. The value of dairy animals should toe based upon the record of production. Third, the bill should provide compensation for unborn calves and unborn pigs.
The bill should also provide for the payment of compensation in connection with feed, straw, buildings, land, et cetera, which may be destroyed as a preventive measure. This last point is important. If farmers are to be encouraged to act promptly then surely it is wise, when considering a disaster that may cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, to pay adequate sums by way of compensation so that these farmers will willingly come forward and disclose a disease which will result in the destruction not only of their animals but possibly of other valuable property which they own. Unless this disease reaches proportions which would be disastrous beyond anything we now imagine, the money involved in dealing adequately with a situation of this kind would be quite small compared with the extent of the disaster with which the farmers and people generally of this country are confronted.
I would point out that while this bill is designed particularly to provide for the slaughter of animals in the areas of infection and to recompense farmers whose animals are slaughtered, this disaster is by no means to be measured by the number of animals slaughtered. This disaster affects farmers right across the country. It is only natural that I should have a personal interest in this matter as the constituency of Carleton,


which I represent, and which is the rural area west of Ottawa, is one of the great cattle producing areas in this part of the country. Sums have been lost by owners of cattle in that constituency simply by virtue of the decrease in value of the animals.
This disaster affects every province where cattle breeding is a major industry. The extent of the disaster can be understood only when we realize the scale on which losses have already occurred. There are herds in Ontario which have decreased in value as much as $150,000 as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in western Canada. That indicates the scale on which this industry is carried on at this time in some parts of eastern Canada. It is no answer to say that this represents simply the present drop in value. We have nothing before us to suggest that we can expect at an early date that the situation will change in a manner that will restore the value of these great purebred herds.
This disaster-and it is a major disaster- calls for the utmost co-operation. May I point out that co-operation was extended in this house yesterday in the form of unanimous agreement to permit this legislation to be dealt with. There has been no delay in the discussion of this bill that has not been caused by the failure of the minister to give this house the information and the assurances we have been asking, which we are still asking and which* we have not yet received. No; this house is ready to co-operate. I am satisfied that every hon. member agrees with the principle that we should pass an act which will adequately compensate farmers whose animals and property-and I add "property"-are destroyed, so they may be encouraged to report any suspicious symptoms immediately without any attempt to dispose of their animals or property in the hope of avoiding financial loss. It is all very well to say, Oh well, no one should do that in any event, no matter what the law may be. Some of the farmers of this country are in a desperate situation, and it is our duty to see to it that they are encouraged to co-operate to the very limit in dealing with this matter.
I suggest also that it is far from satisfactory to be left with the simple statement by the minister that after he has gone to Regina and after he has done other things he may at some future time meet the provincial ministers of agriculture. Recognizing that these barriers now exist, which not one of us wants to see here in Canada, recognizing that provinces have felt impelled to impose embargoes because they believe the dominion government has failed in its responsibility and been grossly negligent, this is the time to overcome those difficulties by bringing together

the provincial ministers of agriculture, remembering that under our constitution they have equal jurisdiction with the federal minister in dealing with problems of this kind. Before another day passes the Minister of Agriculture should arrange for a meeting with all the provincial ministers, and agree upon a plan for fighting this dread disease in a way which will satisfy the provinces and at the same time encourage the movement at the earliest possible date of cattle which can be safely moved. As every hon. member knows, normally western Canada would soon be moving feeders to the east. It will be a very serious thing if they are not permitted to do so. That is one reason this conference should take place right away, so that these feeders can be moved to eastern Canada and that very important branch of the livestock industry maintained.
Then consideration should be given to an agreed plan for orderly marketing. When I say "agreed" I mean a plan agreed upon by the dominion and provincial ministers of agriculture under which orderly marketing can be carried on which will prevent a collapse in the price of these animals. I hope no Canadian will think any real advantage would be gained if he might for the moment get this meat at lower prices as the result of a disaster of this nature. In the end he would be paying very much higher prices, and for an obvious reason. If this market collapses and there is panic selling, the great breeding herds will be sacrificed; and as every hon. member knows it will take years to restore those breeding herds across this country which have built up this tremendous cattle industry. Therefore orderly marketing agreed upon by the dominion and provincial departments of agriculture is one of the essential requirements to maintain confidence in the minds of the farmers and to preserve those great breeding herds which are equal to any in the world in the quality of the animals they produce.
Now may I say a word about the board. Already much has been said about these loose and undefined powers. I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the other hon. members who have spoken of the very unsatisfactory provisions of this act, which simply tells the government to go ahead and do whatever it thinks wise. From what we have seen already we have no reason to believe that the government is too wise in its approach to this problem. We think this act should state some clear principle which will guide the board in making its decisions. Yesterday the minister said very correctly, and I hope he will remember it, that the government must accept responsibility. The government must
Foot-and-mouth disease accept the whole responsibility instead of trying to pass it off on departmental officials and private practitioners. It must remember that it was responsible for the breakdown of the system that had been set up to discover a disease of this kind. It is also the responsibility of the government to let the board and the farmers know on what principle the board will be acting. Otherwise they will have to make their rules from day to day. This is something like the vague international rules to which the minister referred today, which he did not even know about. I hope that statement in Hansard will be well quoted, because it is a gem. The minister said the rules were so secret that even he did not know about them; but under those rules we are sending our people to do these jobs.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say I did not know about them. I did not know the wording.


George Alexander Drew: The minister does not know the wording, yet under those rules, of which he does not know the wording, men are being given instructions. That indicates just why it is so necessary in this instance that the wording should be clear and the principle stated so the board may know what really are its duties and responsibilities.
May I make one suggestion in regard to that board, which may have been made already. I am sure the men whose names have been mentioned are of high standing and recognized ability; but I understand that not one is himself an expert in the breeding of purebred animals. Since the area directly affected, to which this measure will apply, has many purebred herds, it is essential that on that board there be a representative of the purebred livestock industry who can interpret the real economic value of animals of that kind when compensation is being fixed.
What I have said, Mr. Speaker, has been put forward in the hope that we might still obtain from the minister some assurance that steps are going to be taken which will give a feeling of confidence across this country. Instead of doing anything to reassure us he has given us greater reason than ever to be alarmed. The minister simply says the animals were examined and the disease was diagnosed as something else. They went back and again it was diagnosed as something else. But the fact remains that it was foot-and-mouth disease, and nothing can change that. It should be his job to make sure that the system that is now applied in the rest of the country to prevent the spread is one which will not give the same faulty answers already given, and is one which will immediately detect this disease and prevent its further

Foot-and-mouth disease spread. I have put forward suggestions which I hope are worthy of consideration, and I feel sure that even if it involves another day's delay, that delay would be better than passing an act which is not adequate in its provisions, and which will not provide that encouragement to the farmers to report the first suspicion of the disease which, in itself, is the key to early diagnosis.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I should like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, perhaps not bearing directly on the principle of the bill, but since the debate has dealt with other matters 1 feel I should be allowed to say something on this subject. An extremely critical situation has developed in the northeast part of the province of Saskatchewan, which happens to take in part of my constituency. Manitoba has rendered a hard blow to the people in that region by imposing an embargo on livestock. This area ships anywhere from ten to one hundred cars per week over the line of railway into Dauphin, Manitoba. A lot of talking has been done here that was not necessary, and it has meant that the minister has not had a chance to try to remedy this situation which has developed.
The farmers in the area have hogs which will be overweight if they are kept another week or two. This will result in a loss for which there will be no recompense. I ask the minister to do something to relieve this situation which has developed within the last two or three days. The killing and marketing area for the northeast part of the province of Saskatchewan is Winnipeg. It is not Saskatoon, and it is not Regina. It is no place other than Winnipeg, and that has been so for the last fifty years. So fax as livestock are concerned this area is really a part of Manitoba. I would suggest that something be done as soon as possible, because next Saturday is the shipping day for the northeast part of the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry that I was not able to be in the house to listen to all the remarks of the leader of the opposition. I believe I have heard everything that has been said on the question by all the other speakers. The reason I was not here throughout the whole of the speech delivered by the leader of the opposition is that I was attempting to reach some decision, and to receive some advice from the other members of the government, as to how the suggestions made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. 

Diefenbaker), and agreed with by members of the other two groups, might be made effective. I believe I have reached agreement with the member for Lake Centre as to a wording which will carry out his intent and our intent in connection with his suggestion, namely the clarification of what we all agree is the meaning of the section.
I am sorry that 1 have to say, in reply to a question the hon. member asked me, that it will be impossible to accept the other suggestion. Probably the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was correct when he suggested that it would be out of order. Probably it would, but apart altogether from that, I do not think it would be wise to introduce that amendment.
Having said that, I should like to say a word or two concerning the final remarks of the leader of the opposition. We are naturally just as anxious as any member in the house to have arrangements made between ourselves and the provinces as soon as possible which will be satisfactory. I believe that any actions which have been taken by the provinces have been largely as a result of fear. I am not too sure that when people are afraid of something that may happen to them they, are going to pay too much attention to whether their actions are constitutional or otherwise. They are simply going to try to protect themselves in so far as they can. The thing of which these people are afraid is that there is a disease in a limited area among livestock that may spread into other parts of Canada. They want to make certain that the spreading of the disease is not going to be allowed; that is the first thing of which they want to be sure.
I believe that the setting up of the district and the setting up of methods under which animals that have been affected can be destroyed, and through which those that have come in contact with animals affected will also be destroyed, plus the fact that no attempt will be made to move those animals into other parts of Canada, should take care of any fears these people have that someone is going to do something which will permit the animals to move to other sections of Canada. We are intent upon getting that part of the arrangement carried out before we ask the people to co-operate with us to the fullest extent in the matter of moving livestock. We feel we have made a proper arrangement to have that carried out, and just as soon as we know we are in a position to prove that satisfactorily to the representatives of the different provinces we shall approach them. They have their own reasons for doing what they have done, and some of them may be very good reasons. Until we are in a position

to present our case in such a way that it will be satisfactory to them, I doubt very much if any good can come out of any meeting that might be arranged. I can assure the house that just as soon as that set-up is properly arranged, and all actions are being taken in order to assure that no livestock will get out of that area into other parts of Canada, such a gathering will be held. Any trip that I may make to the west at the moment is just for the purpose of making certain, as between ourselves and the province that is concerned with the area, that we are satisfied that what I have just suggested is being properly carried out within the area. As soon as possible after that, we shall have the other gathering.
With regard to the purpose of this particular measure which has to do with the payment of compensation within the area, may I say that it is not concerned with the payment of compensation anywhere else. It has to do with the payment of compensation in the area where the disease actually exists, the area which is under quarantine. This area is practically all within twenty-five miles of Regina in one direction or another.


John George Diefenbaker: It does not say that in the
bin.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, that is aU it covers at the moment. If the disease were to break out fifty miles away or five hundred miles away from that area, I would only then be in a position to take in those areas action similar to the action provided for in this district. But at the mirfute, in so far as the conditions that exist are concerned, it applies only to the area which is under quarantine. I do not think it would be presumed by anyone that, if the disease does not spread, and if it is wiped out in the district where it now is, this legislation gives me any authority to be wandering around Canada making payments. I do not think that I can do that under the act, and I certainly would not feel that I had the authority to do it under the act as it is drafted.
On the question as to whether the compensation will be sufficient to make people feel that they ought to report the disease, may I say that I would not have been surprised had all the members made the same criticism as was made by the hon. member from Nova Scotia. I have heard the criticism so often in the house that I rather expected that the criticism would run more in that direction than in any other, and I appreciate the fact that it has not. I refer to the criticism that the payment would probably be too great rather than otherwise. I appreciate the fact that the house has not taken that
Foot-and-mouth disease position on this occasion. They have done so on other occasions when I have had to do with payments in the western part of Canada. On this occasion, however, their suggestion is that I may not pay enough. I do not think there is much reason for the argument. I think an effort will be made to pay what is fair and reasonable, and nothing more. I think that is all that these farmers will expect; and I am quite sure that the greater part, if not all, of them will be satisfied with the treatment they receive under the provisions of this measure.
The only thing I think I should say in addition to that is that there is some concern expressed on the part of some members- I think it was particularly expressed by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright); and their expressions of opinion were agreed with by some others-that there are others who are going to be suffering.
We have done a few things which have been commended by hon. members in various parts of the house. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) just referred to the fact that there would be hogs which would have to remain on farms for the next two or three weeks, or might have to remain there because of what the Manitoba government has done. We anticipated that situation when we changed our whole regulations with regard to grading and the payment of premiums on hogs, and have already intimated to all persons who might be inconvenienced in that regard that the heavier hogs will be graded in such a manner as to make possible payment on heavier hogs. As I say, we have been commended for that action in various parts of the house, and it does partially take care of the problem in the northeast for a limited time but not for a very long time. We therefore feel that something has been done in that direction.
As to other economic difficulties of persons both inside and outside the area, we all realize that there is no way in which the coming of foot-and-mouth disease to this country can assist us. There may be a few who will get higher prices in some limited communities for a short time because of the fact that the disease has come among us; but in the long run we are all going to lose by the fact that it has come. There is not anybody who is going to make anything by it. We shall all be in the same boat. Business is going to lose by it. Our transportation companies are going to lose by it. The farmers are going to lose by it. Everyone is going to lose by it. When we are all losing by any particular calamity that may come upon us, it is difficult to work out a plan under
128	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease which we can all try to help one another in the sense that we are going to bring more financial remuneration to one another by what we do. In other words, what we are called upon to do is to try to see to it that one group of people in Canada are not injured to the benefit of others, and that those who are going to suffer some economic disadvantages are helped as far as possible.
In spite of what was said a few moments ago by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), in closing the boundary line of Canada to the importation of meat and livestock the government have no other objective than to make it possible for the producers in Canada to have access to the only market there is for them for the time being. If in the long run it becomes possible to find a market somewhere else, that restriction can be removed from people outside Canada. It is not a restriction on people inside Canada. If we all co-operate in having the food that we have properly distributed to one another, there is no hardship in it for anybody in Canada. But if it becomes a hardship for people, say, in Australia, in that they cannot for the time being sell mutton and lamb in Canada, then in due course we would see to it at the earliest possible date that it is not a hardship even upon those people. But for the time being I am sure that people in Australia, in New Zealand, in the United States and elsewhere will realize that this is a problem with which we must deal in Canada, and that for the time being they may have to put up with any little hardships that they are required to put up with in order that we may deal with this particular problem. There is not any other objective whatsoever in the mind of the government in connection with the matter than to retain for the producers in Canada the one market which is available.
It is obvious to everyone that at the present time there is not sufficient demand in that market to take care of all of our cattle and of all of our hogs. That is obvious to everyone who looks at the facts. For the time being we are therefore not asking the consumers to undergo any hardship because they are not going to be able to get food. The food is here and available. The only way in which they can suffer any hardship is by people putting obstructions in the way of the distribution of food that is properly protected against any disease that there may be in the country.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that mean provincial embargoes?


James Garfield Gardiner: When I say that, I am indirectly referring to provincial embargoes.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought so.


James Garfield Gardiner: But I think there is a better way of getting rid of provincial embargoes than by just saying tomorrow morning: Well, none of these acts that you have passed are constitutional, and therefore they are out of existence. I submit that those who put that legislation on their provincial statute books or who, without any legislation at all, just passed an order in council-and in the cases in which that was done, of course, it is obvious that it is not likely to be very constitutional, but nevertheless they have done it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: When they have said that, I do not know that we are going to gain much by saying tomorrow morning: Well, there is not any way in which you can enforce it so we will probably go ahead doing it anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: We have gone a long way by orders in council.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who would stop us?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the method suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is better than that. When we are in a position to do so, I think the better thing to do is to get these people together, to talk -the thing out and by agreement enter upon some system that will work and that will do them all good in the end. I can assure both the leader of the opposition and other hon. members of the house that that will be done at the earliest possible date. If in the interests of no one else than of those who are carrying on in the government here, we will find it much easier to work in that way than to work in any other way. I would suggest that if we can have second reading of the bill now, we can then discuss in committee the change which is suggested in section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Slaughter of animals.
Hazen Robert Argue: It was of great interest to me to listen to the observations of the Minister of Agriculture. I noticed that he made the argument that this disease is going to affect adversely in one way or another all Canadian people. He went on to say that there is no way that we could compensate one another for the hardships and the loss of income caused by the disease. The argument that I made previously for some additional compensation for income was for those farmers within the quarantine area whose income is adversely affected because of this disease. The argument I made was not for every farmer in Canada, or for every person in

Canada, but was for the 2,000 or so farmers who were apt to have a loss of income within that area. There is some information that I should like on this point from the minister if he can give it to me. I think it would be appreciated by the farmers within that quarantine area, and it is this. How do the present regulations affect the movement of cattle within the quarantine area? Can a farmer move his cattle from one quarter-section of land which he owns to another quarter-section of land? How will the regulations affect the farmer-and I personally know hundreds of farmers within that area who toward the end of April or the first of May must move their cattle from their homestead site to summer pastures. The minister will realize that around the so-called blue hills within that area the people of Truax and Avonlea must move their cattle up in the hills for summer pasture. The pasture is within the quarantined area. I am wondering whether farmers will be able to move their cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the last question asked I do not think farmers will be permitted to move the livestock-as a matter of fact I am sure they cannot-from one place to another which takes them two or three miles, or something of that kind, from one area into another. They can move livestock from one piece of land that they own to another that is contiguous to it. They can move livestock across the road, if they have a quarter section on the other side, but if they were going to move livestock five or six or ten miles from their home land to the pasture land, well I do not think it is possible for them to do it under the regulations.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can food be moved in to these cattle from outside the quarantine area in the spring? I know many families who have 25 or 50 head of cattle that they are wintering at home, and some of them have no pasture at home whatever. Many of them have to move their cattle 15 to 20 miles to community pastures or to leased land southwest of Regina up in the blue hills, all in the quarantine area. These cattle will starve to death in May unless feed is brought to them or they are taken to pasture. Certainly that is a problem that the government has to deal with.


James Garfield Gardiner: Provision is made in the
regulations for moving food into the area. It can be moved into the area, but when it is unloaded in the area on any particular person's place it cannot be moved from there to some other place; that is, the food can be brought in from outside in order to permit the feeding of the animals under the circumstances suggested.
Foot-and-mouth disease


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his answer. I think that proves what I have already repeated a number of times, namely, that the existence of this disease within the quarantine area is going to add a terrific expense to many farmers whose livestock do not have the disease. Will the government and the minister give any consideration to assistance through freight assistance, financial assistance or some other type of assistance so that farmers can bring food into that area in order to keep their cattle alive during the summer?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position at the moment to discuss that question intelligently with my hon. friend. I have no doubt that it is one of the questions that I will be discussing on Friday in Regina. All of us who are here know that there has been a relationship of responsibility pretty well established in connection with dealing with calamities in western Canada such as drought and otherwise, under which certain action has been taken by the provinces and certain action by the federal government. Some financing has been done by the actions of the provinces and by the federal government, but until some discussions have taken place I would not wish to discuss the question further here. This bill was not intended to deal with that kind of problem.


Hazen Robert Argue: I concede that. Is the minister going to solicit from the provincial government financial assistance to compensate people within the quarantine area for extra expenses they will be put to to feed the cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not saying I am going to solicit it. I say it will be discussed with them. I do not know what the outcome of the discussion will be.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think this should be laid at the doorstep of the provincial government. I refer to the compensation for anything that is done under this legislation. The government knows it is a federal responsibility. The government has proven to us that it is a federal responsibility, since they have asked parliament to pass this legislation. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will treat those farmers fairly. I believe parliament is willing to treat them fairly, and the minister should not try to slough off his responsibility onto the provincial government.


John George Diefenbaker: There are a couple of
general questions that the minister can possibly answer. He brought them up in the course of his concluding remarks before second reading was given to the bill. One was
130

Foot-and-mouth disease a reference to the question of the constitutionality of provincial embargoes. In the words that he used in speaking in general terms in connection with another matter he indicated that provincial embargoes would be unconstitutional. Has that opinion been given by the law officers of the crown with respect to this matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not yet had the final opinion of the law officers of the crown. They have been asked for an opinion, and were asked for it some little time ago, but it is not one of these things that you just give an opinion upon too quickly. We are hopeful of having this in due course; but even if we did have it I would take the position I took a few moments ago, namely, that it is much better to discuss the matter with the provinces and get some understanding that could be carried out and worked out harmoniously than it would be to enforce it.
I would like to suggest, if the hon. member does not mind my doing so, that, as he suggested an amendment to this section, and if he desires to move the amendment, we might discuss it.


John George Diefenbaker: We are still discussing section 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought we had passed the first section.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, we are still on the first one.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for
Mackenzie brought up an important matter, to which the minister gave a general answer in his final speech. Has the government of Manitoba been communicated with by the Department of Agriculture with a view to removing the embargo on cattle crossing through Manitoba to any other market?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government, through the Minister of Agriculture, was in communication on two or three occasions with the minister of agriculture in Manitoba before the regulation was put on. The matters to which reference is now made were discussed. But I have had no discussion since the regulation was put on. It was only yesterday, and there have been no further discussions pending completion of the debate we are now having in the house, and the passing of the legislation which will permit me to go there fully armed with the whole program when we come to talk to them.
After all, as I said I think it is to a great extent a matter of fear on their part and on the part of some others. They were concerned as to whether or not we were going to extend the buffer area east from Indian


Head. It has been extended down to about Wolseley. A number of questions at that time were under consideration, and in a very short time we will be able to discuss those matters with them.


Major James William Coldwell: Following what has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre, if the minister can achieve the desired results with the provinces through negotiations, well and good. 1 hope it can be done. I think that would be preferable to invoking constitutional provisions. But I am anxious that this shall not pass unchallenged because, as we know, our type of constitutional development is from precedent to precedent. And if this becomes a precedent, if the provinces can do this under those circumstances without being challenged-and again let me repeat my belief that it is better to settle this by negotiation-I do not think the federal government can afford, because of the importance of the matter to parliament, to let this pass unchallenged. The constitutional position should be made clear, even if the result is achieved by negotiation. That is what I had in mind earlier, and I wish merely to emphasize it at this time.


Percy Ellis Wright: In his speech this afternoon, replying to a question of the hon. member for Assiniboia, the minister indicated that his department had not as yet established a definite period during which the quarantine might exist after the last cases of active disease and the last slaughterings had taken place in the quarantined area. There is a good deal of rumour going around among the people in the area as to what that period may be. As a result of those rumours and reports there is much uneasiness.
The minister has stated that to a great extent we are following the methods used in the United States, where they have had experience with this disease. In the United States they must have established certain periods during which they maintained quarantine, after the last active cases were disposed of. The minister should have that information. It is not sufficient to say that, under their law, the United States maintain an embargo for sixty days after they are satisfied the disease in Canada has been eradicated. That sixty days may or may not apply to the quarantine they established in their states or in the areas in which the disease has occurred in the United States. I suggest the minister should either now or at the very earliest possible date establish under the regulations and make known to the public the period of quarantine that is likely to exist. This would save a great deal of uneasiness in the area, and relieve the minds of the

Foot-and-mouth disease
people with regard to what the situation may be. Can the minister indicate what the quarantine period has been in the United States when they have had outbreaks of the disease. Has the government anything in mind as to the length of the quarantine period it intends to maintain here?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is very difficult to state in a manner which will not be misunderstood and perhaps misrepresented-and I do not say it would be done in the house, but rather outside-what the plan is. But I will take the risk of stating it, and I hope what I say will not be misrepresented. I understand the period that is taken in order to clean up the results of the disease in an area, and in order to make absolutely certain that there will not be another outbreak, is about ninety days.
Some people will say, "From what point do you start the ninety days?" That is a most difficult thing for anyone to say. We do, at a certain time, say that we think it has run its course. Then after that there must be a good deal of cleaning up, which takes some time. After the cleaning up has been completed there must be a period of testing to ascertain whether animals coming into the district could contract the disease. By the time all of this is completed, it takes about ninety days. That is as near as I can get to it.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the period used in the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: 1 understand so.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: On two or
three occasions I have raised a matter, and I would hope that in the interim the minister has had a chance to look into the distress of the people who work in the packing houses.
I am speaking on their behalf because they have been in touch with me and asked me to speak for them.
These people agree that it is right and proper that the farmers who are directly affected should be recompensed. They agree it is right that these plants should be closed down so that they may be fumigated and cleansed. They do urge however that, as a result of the onslaught of this disease, they are directly affected and they are losing what amounts to their capital-hours of work they can never make up. They are going to be unemployed, and nothing is being done for them.
I ask once again whether the government is prepared to help these people out at this time-and I am speaking only of those in Regina who are directly affected.
55704-yj


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only repeat what I said last night. I said the government is of the opinion that the Unemployment Insurance Act will take care of these people as well as it has been intended that persons out of work should be cared for over a lengthy period of time. I believe there will be plenty of time to give consideration to anything else that may happen. These men may all be working more than they have been working in the past. I am hoping they will be, because of certain things that will be done in the district. Quite a number of members have been worrying, and properly so, about what is going to happen to the livestock within that area. I think if there is any one area in western Canada where there is not sufficient equipment and labour now employed to take care of the product which will be going to market, it is inside that 'area. And whether such can be employed in those plants by opening them up and resuming work again in the plants is a matter which will have to be considered and decided upon by those who are fighting the disease. If it is not possible to do that, then obviously it will be necessary to provide ways and means of having the slaughtering of animals done and the storage taken care of and all that kind of thing for the time being. I do not think we need to be worrying at the moment about unemployment. The persons who are unemployed are taken care of under the legislation dealing with unemployment. We can give consideration to the other matter but in any case this bill is not the place to deal with it.


Mr. Siewari (Winnipeg Norih):: The minister may not be worried about unemployment, but there is no more bitter experience that a man can undergo than to be unemployed. Furthermore, they must wait nine days before they get anything under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Does the government have any plan in mind or is there any truth in the statements which have been made in newspapers that the packing house companies are to be recompensed- for any losses they have incurred?


James Garfield Gardiner: The plant has been closed down since the 18th so if it is a matter of nine days expiring before they come under the act, that period' would be up.
With regard to the hon. member's second question, nothing has been decided that such payment will be made any more than it has been possible to decide to make payments to labour.


Major James William Coldwell: I listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister said just now about packing house workers probably being engaged pretty steadily in this area in the
132	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease near future. Does that mean that the department has plans to process animals in that area and then use them in some way? I could not quite follow the minister in what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: People within the area will have to be fed and there will be meat utilized there and livestock will have to be dealt with other than by just shooting and burying it. Our friend made an appeal in that direction a little while ago and there are possibilities in it.


Mr.   Baier@: Is the Intercontinental packing plant in. Saskatoon operating as usual?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that plant in Saskatoon is running. I do not know whether they are getting as much livestock as they got before, but they are running.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Compensation for animals.
John George Diefenbaker: When we were in committee on the resolution, stage I pointed out the need of clarification of and alteration in this section, and my suggestions were two in number. The first suggestion had to do with the rather involved first four or five lines of that section. I pointed out that the minister had indicated that the farmer whose animals were slaughtered would have the right to compensation under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act in addition to the further rights to compensation provided under this act. The view of the minister, as expressed by him, was incorporated in the bill. The first amendment I suggest is the one to which the minister has made reference. During the dinner adjournment that portion was redrafted and the suggestion is that it be amended accordingly. The first amendment I would propose is as follows:
That subsection 1 be amended by adding after the word "that" in the third line the following words, namely:
"in addition to any compensation paid under that act further compensation shall be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease so that the total compensation will be fair and reasonable,"
The subsection will then read:
Notwithstanding anything in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, the Minister of Agriculture may order that in addition to any compensation paid under that act further compensation shall be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease so that the total compensation will be fair and reasonable-
That would provide that the compensation payable under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act would still continue and in addition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this bill would be paid.
[Mr. Coldwell.l


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member has inadvertently left out a part of his amendment which would strike out certain words which are there now.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is right. The words that would be struck out would be the following:
-fair and reasonable compensation be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease.


Major James William Coldwell: That is satisfactory as far as we are concerned and we shall be glad to support it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John George Diefenbaker: I wish also to move a further amendment. Unless a further amendment is provided to permit compensation on the basis of the economic value of the animal the farmer may find himself in a position where the amount of compensation received is less than the commercial value. It would seem at first sight that the words "fair and reasonable compensation" would mean compensation in an amount greater than the commercial value, but my contention was and still is that that leaves power in the hands of the valuation committee to pay to the farmer even less than the commercial value of the animal. On its face that would appear an unreasonable interpretation, but the minister himself admitted that the words "fair and reasonable compensation" were capable of being interpreted in that way. I refer to page 43 of Hansard. I had raised this question earlier and said:
Why not have in that bill simply a provision that the valuation shall equal the economic value?


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is that?


John George Diefenbaker: That would be simple. It
would not leave to the minister freedom to determine the question. It could then be determined by principle.


James Garfield Gardiner: The act now says "fair and
reasonable value" which could be even higher than the commercial value or lower as the case may be.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; or lower as the case
may be.
In other words the minister himself in defining the meaning of those words indicates that the valuation placed upon these animals could be even less than the commercial value. I submit that by the compensation we are giving these unfortunate farmers in this area our intention should be to make up to them the economic value of the animals destroyed. This is an act of confiscation. It is not expropriation or anything like that, where fair and reasonable compensation is allowed under the common law, as the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond said. Here we go in and destroy a farmer's herd, taking away his livelihood. Certainly in that case he should be compensated to the extent of the economic value of that herd which would take into consideration the intangibles to

which reference has been made already. I therefore move a further amendment in order to make sure the farmers will not receive compensation which may be less than the commercial value of the animals. I move that the following words be added at the end of section 2 (1), after the words "governor in council":
but in no case to be less than tile economic value of the animal or animals at the time that foot-and-mouth disease was diagnosed as such.


Major James William Coldwell: It is after eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I think we should have a little time to think this over. We could not possibly get the bill through all its stages tonight.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The amendment is obviously out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We could have an argument about that for a while.


Major James William Coldwell: In any event we could not get the bill through tonight.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether I am asking too much, but would the committee agree to sit another twenty minutes or half an hour in order to clean this up? We are most anxious to get into a position to go ahead with what this provides for, and I do not think we will get any further by discussing it much longer. The amendment provides for spending more money than is already provided for in the bill, and I think it is obvious to everyone that there is a definite ruling on that point in connection with amendments.


Major James William Coldwell: The question of whether this is in order has been raised, and even that may involve some discussion. I am not going to discuss it now-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The point the minister has made is quite obvious.


Major James William Coldwell: -but it is eight minutes after eleven now, and I do not think we can finish the bill tonight, though I would like to do it. There may even be some discussion on third reading.


James Garfield Gardiner: In spite of what has been said in the house and particularly from the opposition side, to the effect that we have not been handling this thing as it might have been handled, for the last four nights I have had to work long after midnight and be back here for work again the next day. If the committee does not want to clean it up and get it into operation, all right; but I think we ought to go ahead and clean it up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps I should give my ruling now. Either this amendment
Foot-and-mouth disease involves increased expenditure or in my opinion it is absolutely valueless. There is a well known rule in that connection cited in paragraph 437 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition:
No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.
Then in paragraph 453 at page 171 a well known rule is cited which appears in the Journals of 1949:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons for the past twenty-five years, to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money.
Regretfully I must rule this amendment out of order because, as I said, either it means an increase in expenditure or it is absolutely valueless.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall section 2 as amended carry?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman. Now that there is no question about the correctness of the objection raised, the minister having said that the result of the amendment would be that a larger amount of money would have to be paid out of the treasury than otherwise would be the case, it indicates that the farmers are not going to be properly compensated under this act and that the economic value of the animals is not going to be paid. That is one thing we intend to contend for, and the only way we can do so is by moving on third reading that the matter be referred back so that this house will have an opportunity of voting on whether or not the farmers are to be compensated for the economic value of their animals.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have a further amendment to move. The hon. member for Lake Centre has indicated that he intends to call a division on third reading. Therefore I would ask you to call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it is reasonable to expect us to sit until twelve o'clock, which would be the earliest a vote could be taken. As a matter of fact unless the minister accepts the amendment I am going to move I expect I will find it necessary also to call for a vote on third reading, on the amendment I intend to suggest.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 5, 1952