1952-03-03

APPOINTMENT OF CLERK ASSISTANT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the governor in council has appointed Thomas Russell Montgomery, Esquire, as Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons, in the place of Edward Russell Hopkins, Esquire, who has resigned.



EXPRESSION OF THANKS BY MR. HARRIS (DAN-FORTH) FOR CONGRATULATIONS ON THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION TO PARLIAMENT

Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, who by unanimous resolution have asked me to do so, I should like to have the privilege of thanking the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and the then acting leaders of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties, for what was said by them on December 6 last on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of my election to parliament.
At the same time I should like to express my appreciation of the kind remarks of the whip of our party, and of the letters received from you, Mr. Speaker, and from many other members of this assembly. My constituents demand that I discharge this responsibility, and I do so most sincerely.
While I am on my feet, and in order that it may not be necessary to detain the house on another occasion, I want to thank the government for its great kindness in lending me the services of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who on Saturday last honoured the city of Toronto by attending a meeting of some fifteen hundred people who met to pay tribute to the great work he has done for the health and welfare of this country.



REPORTS AND PAPERS


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to lay on the table copies, in English and in French, of order in council P.C. 1234, of the 3rd of March, 1952,
passed under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act and the Emergency Powers Act, relating to livestock and meat products.



STATUTORY HOLIDAYS


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Dominion Day Act and the Victoria Day Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Lorne MacDougall: On previous occasions I have taken time to explain the purpose of the bill. I am quite satisfied that everyone in the house knows that purpose as well as I do, and I do not think an additional explanation over and above the two already given is required.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of this bill is to add a new subsection 3 to section 6 of the national labour code. The effect will be to write into the national labour code a provision which is already in several of the provincial labour codes, namely, the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. DIVORCE JURISDICTION ACT



EXCHEQUER COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS ORIGINATING IN QUEBEC AND NEWFOUNDLAND

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce.

Foot-and-mouth disease


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon.
gentleman has leave to introduce this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to andi bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935 (payment for farm storage).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilion West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to promote fair employment practices in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that adequate compensation is not provided in the present legislation for the purpose of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, as was suggested by hon. members last Friday, I now ask the consent of the house to introduce at this time both the resolution and the legislation itself which will provide the remedy. The legislation is really a one-section act, with the usual other sections in order to make it operative. I request this consent today because it is essential that we get the whole set-up into operation as soon as possible.
We would be prepared to agree, of course, that this procedure will not prevent a full discussion of the whole matter now under consideration, either during the debate on the speech from the throne or on my estimates. In this way I suppose we might avoid two discussions; and presumably if we discussed the matter now we would be prevented


from discussing it again later this session. Therefore I would like the consent of the house to introduce the resolution1, pass it through its various stages; then to have the legislation based upon it introduced immediately and passed through its different stages, so that the whole operation may be made legal at this time. I have discussed the matter with the leaders of the three opposition groups, and from what they have said I take it that they are inclined to agree.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat unusual procedure, but the request relates to a very unusual situation, and I am happy to agree that we proceed in the manner that has been suggested. My remarks, of course, do not cover the contents of the bill, but simply the request that this matter be dealt with now. In saying that my remarks do not cover the contents of the bill, naturally I am not attempting in any way to limit the discussion of its contents, which actually are not yet before hon. members. I welcome the fact that a measure which is designed to meet a very serious situation, and to restore confidence in the area affected, does come before the house so soon.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: We
are very happy to give the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the consent for which he has asked to proceed with this measure and to endeavour to get it through all its stages today. A number of questions, however, in connection with this subject have arisen in western Canada which require elucidation, and I believe there must be some discussion at this stage. Perhaps the minister when he presents the resolution would make a clear explanation of the circumstances connected with the discovery of this disease, and all the implications connected with it.
I shall be glad to facilitate the passage of this measure today, but there should be an opportunity to consider certain questions which have arisen, not only in the minds of hon. members but also in the minds of those in the part of the country affected. It would be helpful if the minister gave us a full explanation and allowed some debate; I do not think it would interfere with putting through the measure at today's sitting. I am sure we shall co-operate to that end.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest, then, that we have a question period at the usual time when the resolution is in committee of the whole house. I do not know that there is much that I can add to what I said on Friday, but I shall be quite free to answer any questions I can.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider 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.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister going to make any further statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I should read the bill to be based on the resolution. It is as follows:
An Act for the Control and Extirpation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	The Minister of Agriculture may cause any animal to be slaughtered where he deems it necessary in order to prevent the spreading of or to extirpate the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada.
2.	(1) 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.
(2) The Minister of Agriculture may also order that fair and reasonable compensation, to be determined as provided in subsection one, shall be paid in respect of any buildings, fodder, grain or other things ordered to by destroyed under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act or the regulations thereunder by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease.
3.	The compensation payable under this act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament.
4.	This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the eighteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and shall be repealed on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.
Now, as to my making a further statement, I repeat that it would be difficult for me to make a fuller statement than the one I made on Friday last concerning the discovery of the disease and the action taken from that time down to the time it was declared to be foot-and-mouth disease. Briefly I can say 55704-3
Foot-and-mouth disease that it was found that the animals on the farm of Mr. Waas were suffering from some malady on the 26th day of November. He called his veterinarian, who was ill, and the veterinarian took it for granted that it was a disease known as stomatitis and prescribed accordingly. The animals did seem to recover. At a later time the matter was taken up with a veterinarian in Regina, and on that occasion the question was referred to the federal authorities.


Major James William Coldwell: What date was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was some time shortly after the 26th, I think about December 2 or 3. I would not be too certain about that, and it is for that reason I say it would be difficult to make a statement now. I would have to obtain all these facts from Regina, but it would be within a reasonably short time after November 26.
One of our officials investigated the disease, and was of the same opinion as those who had been looking at the cases before, namely, that it was not foot-and-mouth disease. That opinion was maintained by all those associated with it up until a certain date, some time after the new year. Then suggestions were made that it looked as though it might be foot-and-mouth disease.


Major James William Coldwell: After the first visit was any quarantine put into effect?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, quarantine was immediately established on November 26, and it is still in effect. The usual practice in connection with contagious diseases, whether it be foot-and-mouth or any other disease, is immediately to put on the quarantine, just as you quarantine humans who are suffering from measles.


Major James William Coldwell: Was it maintained during the whole of this period?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the quarantine has been maintained on the individual farm all the way through. There may have been some days when it was off. That is why I hesitate to try to make a statement at this time. In any case, this farmer's stock has been under check during all of the period. Eventually our official, Dr. Childs, who had been out there earlier, went back to check again. He was under the impression that there were more reasons for thinking that it might be foot-and-mouth disease, and the area was put under quarantine. That is, all the oases that had been reported as stomatitis were checked; they were all within the area of niine municipalities, and that area was quarantined a week ago last Wednesday. The virus was brought back to Ottawa. The serum was brought from Britain with which to make

Foot-and-mouth disease the blood check. The blood check was made,
I believe, a week ago Saturday, and it was determined on Sunday that it was foot-and-mouth disease. As soon as that fact was determined, the United States authorities closed the boundary line against Canadian livestock.
Mr. Cold well: Dr. Childs went out twice, did he?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand so, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: During this time were any samples of blood taken from the animals affected? If so, was any use made of the facilities at the university of Saskatchewan in order to see if this was a virus that was not of the kind suggested earlier?


James Garfield Gardiner: First I must correct something that I said the other day and stated was subject to correction. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the leader of the C.C.F. group, asked me who was the person connected with the department. In order to be exact, may I read from Hansard at page 14:


Major James William Coldwell: Who is the chief authority in
Saskatchewan?
I had made the statement that right up until last week the chief authority in Saskatchewan was maintaining that the disease was stomatitis. If in reply to that question I had just said "Dr. Fulton", I think I would have been right. But there are other officials there besides Dr. Fulton, The statement which was in my mind was one which appeared in the press, and I read it in Vancouver. It was in the Vancouver Daily Frovince of February 21, 1952, and it is headed "Disease not fatal". It is a Canadian Press report, dated at Saskatoon, and reads as follows:
Dr. J. L. Millar, of the University of Saskatchewan animal disease laboratory, said Wednesday infectious stomatitis, as reported in cattle in the Regina area, is not considered serious by veterinarians, although symptoms are similar to those of hoof-and-mouth disease.
He said the disease is rarely fatal and animals generally recover without treatment-and without after effects-after about ten days with sore, slobbering mouths.
That is the opinion I referred to on Friday. It describes the disease and describes the difference between the two. By whatever means he arrived at that conclusion, he was apparently of the opinion that the disease was stomatitis.


Major James William Coldwell: Up to that time had any use been made of the facilities at the university of Saskatchewan, by testing of blood, saliva or other samples, in order to find out if this virus actually was stomatitis, as it was apparently believed to be by practically everybody who was in contact with it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not be aware of that fact, because where diseases of any kind, whether more or less serious, are prevalent in a province, it is the general practice that someone reports the matter and it is taken up and examined into at some centre. In Saskatchewan the centre is Saskatoon. Whether that is actually what was done in this case I do not know. As I understand it, however, the further fact is that even at Saskatoon the officials would not be able' to determine finally whether or not it was foot-and-mouth disease. That fact could be determined only at the Hull plant, and it can be determined only after getting proper serum from Great Britain-which is the only place that it is made-and utilizing it in animals into which you first inject the virus and then the serum; the two, brought together in the same animal, constitute the proof as to whether the malady is foot-and-mouth disease or not. I may say that, at the time everyone seems to have agreed that it was not foot-and-mouth disease, this latter process had not been gone through. But as soon as Dr. Childs went back and was convinced-I suppose by what he saw and by those to whom he talked -that it might be foot-and-mouth disease, he had the government quarantine the whole area. Then he obtained the serum, made the investigations a week ago Friday and Saturday, and declared it to be foot-and-mouth disease.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: All I intend to do, Mr. Chairman, is to make a few general observations, particularly in view of the fact that the area affected adjoins or is included within the confines of my own constituency.
Parliament must show itself effective to act in emergency. Today, once again, it has done so. One thing parliament must maintain is the assurance that when national action is required it will be taken, regardless of rules of procedure, which, after all, effective and necessary as they are, are often difficult to apply under extraordinary conditions.
Having listened to the minister the other day, having then raised the question of compensation, which vexes the minds and the hearts of the farmers of Saskatchewan, and having listened to him today as he replied to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, knowing, as he knew, and as we all know, the terrible catastrophe to our trade that follows the undetermined nature of this disease, may I say that if ever a department of government showed dilatoriness and negligence, I think it is this one. The discovery in November last should have demanded immediate attention. If it is not negligent, then the government has

not shown that regard for the terrible consequences that will follow for the Canadian cattle market that should characterize a government.
The minister says that he has not before him the facts as to when these various occurrences took place. I obtained some of the pertinent dates this morning. A mere recital of them reveals a situation that demands the giving of more than the passing information which has so far been given by the Minister of Agriculture.
On November 26, 1951, the first outbreak occurred on the farm of Mr. Waas at McLean. The farmers in that area were talking about hoof-and-mouth disease throughout November and December. They were fearful. On the last day of November they got in touch with the dominion veterinarian at Regina. On the first day of December two federal veterinarians visited the farm, and on December 2 that farm was quarantined. The minister says that under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act quarantine is allowed for stomatitis. That is not my reading of the act. The farmers were asking why something was not being done. On a number of occasions the farmers in the area went to various veterinarians connected with government and submitted samples of saliva and parts of the animals affected by the disease. The answer that was given them, as I am informed, was, in effect: After all, we have enough samples such as that.
On December 2, the quarantine; on December 3, outbreaks on the farms of Mr. Wood and Mr. Smith at McLean, farmers who had helped on the Waas farm. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, there has been gross dilatoriness in respect to a matter affecting the export trade of this country. It should have been realized that the failure to meet the threat of hoof-and-mouth disease would immediately result in the closing of the United States market to Canada.
I understand that on December 25, or thereabouts, the disease was found in an abattoir in Regina. But between December 25 and January 29 nothing was done. The disease spread along the areas adjoining Was-cana creek. The minister claims one cannot determine whether it is1 hoof-and-mouth disease unless you get the serum from England. How many hours and days would that take?
With a most dangerous challenge affecting the livestock market of this country, the government acted with that leisure that is a denial of the emergency that existed.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I answer one question as to how many days it would take? The
Foot-and-mouth disease quarantine order was put on on Wednesday. The serum of course can be flown over and is flown over. The actual check was made on Friday and Saturday.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly in confirmation of what I am saying. Why was it not determined all through the months of December and January while farmers complained of the situation and the spread of this epidemic? Surely, with the symptoms there, that could have been done. As a layman I can name the symptoms. There is the fact that as between stomatitis and hoof-and-mouth disease there is not too great a symptomatic difference. The symptoms being alike, one would think that immediately the serum would be brought over from England in order to ascertain whether or not it was hoof-and-mouth disease.
On and on delays continued until last Wednesday week; the government was waiting, hoping, but not acting. Finally, sir, on February 20 a general quarantine was applied to which the minister has made reference. On February 25, five days later, there was an announcement of the disease followed by an effect on Canadians in every province in the denial of the United States market to our cattle. That is an example of what we in the opposition have said, namely, the danger in recent years of having in the United States our main agricultural market which could be closed at any time.
That market was endangered by delays and failure to act. The Minister of Agriculture says in effect, we were not sure. My information is that in the United States, if there is any doubt, immediately an inoculation is made to determine whether or not the disease exists, and that is known in three to six days. That information is not segregated, specialized information that is known only to agricultural experts; it appears in the records of the United States Department of Agriculture. You did not have to wait even to send samples to England; those facilities were available. The explanations given by the minister of the continued delay and failure to act is one of the most serious condemnations that could be made against the present government. The -great cattle industry of agriculture stood in the balance. That danger existed from November 26 until February 20, and all the officials did was to look at the general symptoms. It is true, as the minister says, that the symptoms were similar to the other disease; but instead of determining the matter finally they delayed and in the meantime the disease was spreading.

Foot-and-mouth disease
When I see the pictures of an immigrant being run back and forth across Canada I ask myself, would it not have been easier to take his clothes and shoes and make an analysis without all this marching here and there? If any indications of the disease is found on him without any admissions on his part, what agency of government will be able to say that he did not get this virus on his clothing while he worked on the farm? To me it is just a lot of movement back and forth in order to divert the attention of the Canadian people from a most serious situation and from responsibilities which, so far as the farmers in the west are concerned, will result in terrible losses as time goes on.
Ontario and Quebec can build up embargoes by agreement between themselves. Since Ontario produces more than it needs, and Quebec requires a good deal of the production of Ontario in order to maintain the necessary meat supply, they will be able to work out an arrangement between themselves; but we in the west are in a position which is dangerous to our economy. A large measure of the responsibility for that situation in my opinion must rest upon the government for its failure to act.
Today a bill for compensation is produced. Like the leader of the opposition, I am in entire agreement with the purpose of it and the need of its being passed; but it is a model of uncertainty. There is nothing in it to indicate what the farmer will get. There is no basis upon which the determination will be made. There is nothing to determine the difference in price between the ordinary animal and the purebred animal. Surely the principle upon which will be based the amount that the farmers will receive for their animals that are destroyed should be set forth in the bill and not left to order in council.
I did not see this bill until a few minutes ago, and my analysis therefore is not what it might be with some preparation. I read:
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-
The Animal Contagious Diseases Act-I speak from memory, because I have not looked at it-provides for payment of from $40 in respect of ordinary cattle to $100 in respect of purebred cattle, in addition to the commercial value of the carcass. This legislation does not determine what the farmer

who has purebred cattle will receive. The bill goes on to say:
-such compensation to be determined in the manner prescribed by regulations to be made by the governor in council,-
Let parliament know what the basis is to be. I continue:
-and after a report by a board of valuators to be appointed by the governor in council.
In the compensation that is to be paid parliament should not permit the board of evaluators to say that one farmer may receive one figure and another man another figure. Let it be set forth in general that the purebred cattle producer shall receive economic value, and that commercial cattle-cattle which are produced for sale and not for breeding and other purposes-shall have their sale valuation. To place in the hands of the minister or in the power of the governor in council the right to determine this valuation- with a board of evaluators set up, with the hired man responsible to the boss-leaves altogether too much power in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture.
The next paragraph reads:
The Minister of Agriculture may also order that fair and1 reasonable compensation, to be determined as provided in subsection one, shall be paid in respect of any buildings, fodder, grain or other things ordered to be destroyed.
The same argument applies to that. I suggest that the principle of the measure of compensation be set forth in general within the bill. Then the question of the determination of other incidental matters may be left to order in council. Let me read-


James Garfield Gardiner: What do you suggest the maximum amount should be?


John George Diefenbaker: Since I have referred to this matter, perhaps I should read a letter I have before me as an example. There would be no objection to that. This is from Adams, Saskatchewan-


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to ask a question. What do you suggest the maximum compensation should be?


John George Diefenbaker: I would suggest that the valuation of breeding stock should be the valuation that is actually there, rather than-


Mr. Abbott:: By whom?


John George Diefenbaker: If we place ourselves, in parliament, under this measure, in a position where compensation is uncertain, and if the farmer with purebred stock is to get the commercial value, then we are not going to invite the assistance of farmers in western Canada so that when their cattle are attacked by disease they will bring the matter to the attention of the department outside the area

quarantined. They will not have the incentive to report their suspicions that their animals are suffering from the disease.
That was the situation in connection with the spread of glanders some forty-five years ago. Until provision was made as to the compensation that would be received, the glanders epidemic could not be met. Those who had valuable horses which, they suspected, were suffering from the disease, failed to report because they felt they would receive only the value of an ordinary work horse, rather than a fair allowance for a purebred animal.
I shall now read a letter from a farmer in Adams, Saskatchewan. It is dated February 27, 1952, and states:
By now you will have heard the tragic news which has struck our district.
In connection with this there are a few facts I would like to bring to your attention. My own herd of 36 purebred Aberdeen Angus are doomed to be slaughtered after having made what appeared to be recovery. My own herd and those of a number of neighbour farmers living along the Wascana creek were stricken with this disease from January 24 to 27. All these farms use this creek as water supply. Even then and on previous occasions we were unable to get action from the department of health of animals. Neither could our own veterinarian get any co-operation from said office.
Early in January Burns and Company stockyards of Regina were placed under semi-quarantine when this disease broke out in their yards-some 200 head. This was never made public. Farmers were permitted to deliver cattle in their trucks, walk through sales office without warning and go anywhere afterwards.
In other words, those farmers who lived in the area affected by the hoof-and-mouth disease were carrying it in and out. The letter continues:
But the public should know where said meat went; also why was this outbreak not made public until their yards were empty of cattle.
Then he goes on to deal with disposal.
Now I would like this matter brought before the house if you see fit. Another thing, if and when we do get compensation for our stock-
Then he deals with another matter which I shall bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance, because he showed his interest a moment ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the date of the letter?


John George Diefenbaker: He continues:
-will it be classed as taxable income for 1952? Or might it be paid at one lump sum and spread over some few years? Now I will just mention I started in this business in 1937 with one purebred cow, have built up a show herd, and now am cleaned1. Trusting you will do all you can in this important matter . . .
The letter is signed by Hubert Beatty. There is a man who has lost everything he
Foot-and-mouth disease built up from the days following the depression. That letter represents the feeling of the people. They want to know what the basis of compensation will be. Certainly there is nothing to indicate that in the measure we have before us.
The farmers of western Canada are asking that they be compensated for their economic loss on these cattle. In connection with the other matter raised by the gentleman who wrote the letter-and it has been raised by many other farmers in Saskatchewan-they are wondering, in connection with the enforced destruction of their cattle by government action, whether or not provision will be made whereby the sum they received shall not be considered as the current year's income.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would ask again the date of the letter.


John George Diefenbaker: It is right up to date- February 27, 1952. Nothing that has happened since by way of promises of compensation clarifies the nebulous answer the minister gave the other day when I asked this question regarding the basis of compensation and there is nothing in the bill to clear it up.


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer is that I had a wire from Mr. Beatty. I answered it, and have not had a complaint since.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that may be. If
the minister was clear in his answer as to what Mr. Beatty is to get, why is he not as clear in parliament when he places a bill before it, so that all will know? I am going to ask the minister when that wire was received, and what he said in his wire that had the effect his communications have so often, of leaving the impression that all will be well, when things do not always turn out that way.
This man, as others in the area have done, referred also to the question of income tax, and the liability of these farmers in 1952.


Mr. Graydon:: The Minister of Finance had better send a wire too.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister was laughing. I did not realize it was a laughing matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was not laughing. I was listening attentively.


The Chairman:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I have dealt with the question of compensation and income tax. I now pass on to another matter, and point out to the minister and the government that something will have to be done to preserve

Foot-and-mouth disease western Canada, and particularly the feeder cattle producers in that area, by providing a floor under live cattle prices.
As the situation is, if a floor is placed under the carcass it will not protect the farmers throughout the west who depend upon their income from the production of feeder cattle.
I believe, too, that at this time we should hear from the government as to what is going to be done or what has been done to assure disposal of part of our surplus beef in the United Kingdom, in view of the closing to us of the United States market. Certainly, with the United States market closed to us, and with the intensification of production that has followed from the availability of that market, we must find other markets. In dealing with this matter the minister should give the House of Commons some information which will give hope to the farmers.
The minister said the other day that there was no embargo on feed grain. There is, however, an embargo on feed grains from the area under quarantine. I believe the minister will agree with that. If the disease spreads, as so often happens; if it is carried from place to place before the application of the quarantine, then some consideration should be given by the government, in respect to the areas in question, to an advance in connection with the storage of grains, or payments for storage. These are matters affecting a large number of people in the western provinces today, although they are confined particularly to the quarantined areas. In order to make assurance doubly sure, and so that each farmer will not have to depend on the interpretation that the minister or any other member of the government may give as to the extent of the compensation, I ask that the basis, measure or yardstick of compensation shall be set forth generally in the bill and made subject only to the things that may arise which can only be provided for by regulation.
Those are in general the submissions I wish to make on behalf of the affected area in Saskatchewan. After all, it is not only a Saskatchewan problem; it is one that affects the whole of Canada. It is one that has in it potentialities of destruction of one of the great industries of this country for years to come. I am sorry to say that I have to repeat that the postponements, the failure to get serum, the waiting from week to week, even from month to month, when a total period of six days would have been all that was necessary with the serum that could have been procured, are all indications of a delay which the government has a responsibility to explain and has not yet done so.


Major James William Coldwell: I find it rather difficult to understand the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. Usually when a matter affecting his department comes before the house he has at his fingertips all the information required. I asked certain questions, and to a large extent the hon. member for Lake Centre has given the dates about which I was inquiring. To my mind it seems almost incredible that, with the declaration that it was foot-and-mouth disease being made on February 19, the minister is unable today, the 3rd of March, to give us the story of the discovery of the disease and the quarantine orders that were issued.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I be permitted to interrupt?


Major James William Coldwell: Just a minute.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is right on the point you were mentioning. This morning the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth sent me a question which he intended to ask today on the orders of the day if we get to them. The question reads as follows:
When was the health of animals branch in Saskatchewan first notified of a vesicular disease in cattle? When was Ottawa notified? When did officials from Ottawa first visit the infected area? What did they report and when was the first infected material delivered to the animal diseases research institute in Hull?
I received those questions about an hour and a half before I came into the house. I asked my officials if they could give me the answers to those questions. I was told they could not possibly give them to me today before the house met, having regard to the form in which the questions were asked, but that they would get them as soon as possible. Up until the time I came into the house it was absolutely impossible for me to get information that I would stand up in the house and repeat, particularly in view of the experience I had on Friday when I attempted to answer one question without having all the facts exactly as they are.


Major James William Coldwell: Then surely that is a reflection on the minister's department. These are such grave matters that all the information regarding them should be available immediately to the minister when he asks for it. I think that all the minister has done is to indicate a tremendous amount of laxity on the part of his own department. I am most surprised because I have always had a very high respect for the people in that department. I think that the situation is so unsatisfactory with respect to the background of this disease in the province of Saskatchewan that the committee on agriculture should be set up immediately and the officials of the department called before it. Then

all the information available could be obtained. I have no official information, but the hon. member for Lake Centre has information of very much the same sort as I have.
I have received information from a retired veterinarian in the province of Saskatchewan for whom I have the highest regard. I am not going to mention his name but if I were to do so I think the minister would agree that he is one of the outstanding veterinarians in Canada at the present time. The information I received from that source was that there were facilities at the university of Saskatchewan and highly qualified veterinarians who, if they had been given the opportunity to examine the blood or saliva of the affected animals, would have been able to say that it was not stomatitis but something else, even if they could not have diagnosed it as foot-and-mouth disease.
I cannot understand one of the chiefs of the health of animals branch going out to Saskatchewan in December and. not bringing back samples to Hull in order to try to identify this disease which, as the hon. member for Lake Centre said, had aroused the suspicions of the laymen, of farmers in that area of Saskatchewan. I think that this matter should be the subject of a very full inquiry by the standing committee on agriculture. I believe that committee should be immediately set up and the officials of the department should be called before it.
I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre that this is a very serious matter for the people who are having their herds destroyed, who are quarantined, and those who cannot market feed grain, hay or other produce out of the affected area. But there are others involved who are not going to get compensation under this bill. I refer to the dairy farmers of that whole area. What is going to be done for them? What is going to be done for the farmers who cannot ship their feed grain out of the area? What is going to be done for the stock men who will have to retain their cattle on their farms probably for months, unable to market them? Yet those cattle are ready for market and every day means a loss, although maybe not entirely, to these men who are compelled by the quarantine that has been instituted to retain the animals on their farms. Therefore I say there are more people involved than the persons whose animals are slaughtered or whose goods are destroyed.
To my mind, if this outbreak is not brought under control-and I hope it will be-it will be one of the greatest calamities that have befallen this country since the years of the great drought between 1930 and 1939. I cannot
Foot-and-mouth disease understand the laxity of the health of animals branch, and I refer particularly to the high official who went there in December. Indeed I am told that a quarantine was put on and was then taken off, and that during the time the quarantine was off farmers who had visited that farm took feeder cattle, or animals that became feeder cattle, to the Burns plant in Regina which cattle were moved out of that plant to farms where this contagious disease has since appeared. If that is true it does show great negligence on the part of those responsible. I am at a loss to understand why, with all the veterinarians in that area attending these animals and with early reports made to the federal health of animals branch, it was not until February 19 or thereabouts that the disease was diagnosed. It is all very well for the minister to say that in order to diagnose specifically this disease certain serums had to brought in from the United Kingdom. I am surprised to hear that. I would have thought that in countries like the United States and Canada, where we have large ranches and hundreds of thousands of cattle, there would have been vaccines or antidotes, or at least the secretions necessary for identification purposes, which would have permitted a quick diagnosis of this dread disease to have been made.
I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre that we should have more provision for compensation than is in this bill. I believe the compensation that will have to be paid should take into account the actual physical value of the animals. If the stock is purebred, then it should be paid for as purebred stock. I think the people of Canada will expect adequate compensation to be paid those who suffer because their cattle are slaughtered, as well as all those who may suffer indirectly.
I also agree, as I have said over and over again in the house in days gone by, that we were placing all our eggs in one basket when we lost the British overseas market for pork products and other meats. I believe everything possible should be done to dispose of some of any surplus meat in the United Kingdom market. I know the policies of various governments of Canada, tariff policies and so on, have made it difficult for the British to market goods in this country and thereby obtain the dollars necessary to buy our bacon and other meat products. It may be that by loan or in some other way we should have to provide the dollars with which they could buy these products. But we cannot allow these commodities to go to waste, nor can we allow them to pile up in great surpluses. We shall have to dispose of them. We can dispose of more in Canada than we

Foot-and-mouth disease have been disposing of; but there must be no fire sale of these agricultural products. Floor prices must be established. I believe the announcement the minister made this morning regarding the grading of hogs will be very helpful; but I also believe we shall have to establish floor prices and try to dispose of much of our beef and other meat surpluses in a new market. The United States market has always been uncertain, so even if we have to finance sales ourselves for the time being we should explore every possible avenue whereby we may keep this great industry on a more or less even keel.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I say a word about one or two matters that have been raised. The leader of the C.C.F. party has suggested that this matter should be referred to the agriculture committee. I have no objection to that, and I am sure the government would have no objection. But the fact that it is to be referred to that committee should not be permitted to delay the passage of this legislation as it now stands. If it will speed up this legislation to have it agreed that the matter will be placed before the agriculture committee this session, there is no objection to that.
A number of points have been raised that I am a little curious about myself, such as this matter of dates and what has happened. The hon. member for Lake Centre says that the area covers part of his constituency. It also covers part of mine; and in addition I was in Saskatchewan, as a matter of fact right in the middle of this district, from I think February 4 to February 8. At that time I was in the city of Regina.


Mr. Fraser:: Were you disinfected afterwards?


James Garfield Gardiner: What I am going to say will probably indicate that my hon. friend is more in need of being disinfected than I am. I was in Regina right in the centre of all this talk that is supposed to have been going on. Everybody knew I was there; it was in the press every morning. Not a single farmer or anyone else came to me and mentioned even the possibility of foot-and-mouth disease in the Regina district. In addition, during the whole of the following week I was at my own farm, which is about fifty miles from the farm of Mr. Waas. In order to get there I have to drive through McLean, and I drove through McLean twice during that week. No one reported to me any fear that there was foot-and-mouth disease in that district. I venture to say that if all this concern that has been mentioned this afternoon had been felt in that area, surely someone would have come and told me about it.

As far as I know there was no concern among the people there. Apparently they were all satisfied that whatever disease their cattle had, it was not foot-and-mouth disease.
Well, about February 16 or 17 I went further west, where I got the first report on the following Monday that someone thought there might be foot-and-mouth disease in the Regina area. From that distance I gave the officials instructions to immediately arrange for whatever quarantine was felt advisable, in spite of the fact that no one had yet declared that this was foot-and-mouth disease.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that in Regina?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I was then in Vancouver. I was reached by telephone from Ottawa, and I gave those instructions. As soon as it could possibly be done the government did put on the quarantine.


Mr. Cardiff:: How strict was the quarantine?


James Garfield Gardiner: The quarantine was just as strict as it is now. You could not move any animals in or out of the district; you could not move any feed around any district except from one farm to another where they were both owned by the same individual.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Were the people allowed to move around?


James Garfield Gardiner: The people were not allowed to move around except to go in and do their ordinary shopping. The same restrictions that are imposed under any quarantine at any time have been in effect since that time and are still in effect.
The only point I wished to make is that in the first place I do not think there was all the discussion the hon. member for Lake Centre has suggested. Otherwise I am quite sure some of those people would have come to me, because I know them very well.


Mr. Rowe:: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but on what date did he give instructions for the quarantine?


James Garfield Gardiner: A week ago last Wednesday was the day the quarantine was put on, not last Wednesday as was suggested, I think inadvertently, toy the hon. member for Lake Centre. The quarantine has been on and it has been very effective. As a matter of fact I can quite understand the inquiries that have been made by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I can quite understand the concern of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I have had a little of the same kind of concern myself, naturally.


William Earl Rowe: Only for ten days, though.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have had it ever since it was first reported to me by anyone that there was anyone who thought that there was foot-and-mouth disease in the district, and I am in and out of the district continually.


Mr. Charlton:: May I ask the minister a question? When was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Which date?


John Alpheus Charlton: When you first had the information?


James Garfield Gardiner: When it was 'phoned to me at Vancouver by my own staff.


William Earl Rowe: About a week ago?


James Garfield Gardiner: Two weeks ago today.


William Earl Rowe: You have not been worrying very long, then.


James Garfield Gardiner: Foot-and-mouth disease we are supposed to know what we are paying out, and why. In effect, what this legislation says, and it has already been done so far as the board is concerned, is that there is going to be a board set up. Since the member for Lake Centre wanted to know what I said to Mr. Beatty, 1 told him that there was to be a board set up which would be sitting in Regina in the office of Mr. George Robertson in the wheat pool building, and it will be sitting until further notice. I said, "You are quite at liberty to place your appeal before this board and put any arguments you wish before the board." Those arguments will be properly considered and reported to me as minister. So far as I know, Mr. Beatty is satisfied with that. He has not made any-


George Alexander Drew: What date was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last Friday, after your letter was written. It was for that reason I asked the question about the date of the letter.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister would read the wire of approval from Mr. Beatty to which he referred.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not refer to a wire. I said there had been no complaint from Mr. Beatty since, so I assume it has met with his approval. Mr. Beatty knows me personally-


William Earl Rowe: Evidently.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and he would not have any hesitation in calling me by long distance if he had any complaint to make. Apparently after receiving the wire he did not have any, and I assume he went to see the board. Every one of those animals will be inspected by a competent inspector who will suggest the valuation which will be placed before the board. The board will consider his valuation. Two members of the board live in the area-


John George Diefenbaker: Who are the members of the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: I asked treasury board to put one member on the board, and they readily agreed. Mr. G. W. Stead is to be a member.


John George Diefenbaker: Who are the other
members?


James Garfield Gardiner: The manager of P.F.R.A.
pastures, Raymond Youngman, and Mr. G. W. Stead of the treasury. The Chairman is Mr. George W. Robertson of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. All these men are qualified to deal with livestock and the paying out of money, the two things which are under consideration. This board will make a report

to the Minister of Agriculture, and the minister will recommend to the government what the payment ought to be.
The suggestion is made that the farmers ought to know what that payment is going to be. I venture to say that within a very few days after this legislation is passed, perhaps even a few hours after it is passed, Mr. Beatty's case will be dealt with. When it is dealt with, there is no reason why the facts should not be published in the local papers. Then everyone will know about what the treatment is going to be. They can sit down and calculate their own position as compared with that of Mr. Beatty much more readily than can any member of this house, and they will be able to interpret, within $5 or $10 a head, what they will get for their livestock under similar circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Why should a general principle not be enunciated?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a general principle. The general principle is that somebody must go and look at the stock, see what it is worth and report it to someone else. It finally comes to the government and we determine it.


William Earl Rowe: There is a difference of more than $5 or $10 a head between Mr. Beatty's herd and the herds in western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not the purebred herds in general.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The purebred herds in general will compare favourably with Mr. Beatty's herd. Mr. Beatty's herd is a show herd. It will be one with a comparatively high value. As I said a moment ago, I know Mr. Beatty. I know him only through correspondence, through the fact that he has been showing cattle, and that kind of thing. But I know that he is the type of farmer who will compare favourably with many who are in that district. When the farmers get the valuation that is placed on Mr. Beatty's stock, and if he is satisfied, many other people are going to be satisfied that they are going to get fair treatment. May I say in passing that I do not know which way Mr. Beatty votes, just in case my hon. friends have anything of that kind in mind.


George Alexander Drew: Obviously the minister is going to do his best.


James Garfield Gardiner: He will be dealt with as a farmer, as one who is producing livestock, and on no other basis. When he receives his payments, I think the other farmers will all leam what they are, and they will know the

situation better than they would if any maximum sum is written into this legislation, because you could not put in actual sums.


John George Diefenbaker: Not maximum sums. The principle should be established that you are either going to pay the farmers the commercial value or that you are going to pay them the economic value. Surely a general principle should be established.


James Garfield Gardiner: If we had not been going to pay them more, we would not have needed the legislation at all. In the act as it is now we have the authority to pay the commercial value.


John George Diefenbaker: You have not authority to pay for animals that are merely in contact with diseased animals. That is the difference.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have authority to pay for animals that we order to be slaughtered.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have power to pay the commercial value of animals that we order to be slaughtered. If that is all we were going to do, we did not need this legislation. We need this legislation only because we are going to pay more, and for no other reason. That is the only principle involved. Let us put it through and get the payments made.


John George Diefenbaker: We have done that before and afterwards found out that things were not as we thought they were going to be. What I am trying to get at is this. 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.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us go back to my cow with the calf inside her. At the present time those cows are worth at least $500 each, or many of them are, and the question as to how much the calf is worth depends upon the sire to which the cow has been bred.


William Earl Rowe: Not entirely.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, the members of this group share with other hon. members of the house on all sides the great anxiety which is felt concerning this serious outbreak. We do not wish to prolong the discussion. I do not wish to try to describe exactly what method shall be used to find out what we want. We desire, however, that every possible measure shall be taken by the government, first of all to discover the source of the infection; second, to determine the responsibility for the apparent negligence; third, to provide for the extermination of the disease; and fourth, to protect our livestock industry from impairment. I believe that every one of those requirements has been referred to by hon. members who have spoken thus far. We shall be concerned in seeing how it all works out.


Hazen Robert Argue: I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement just now made by the Minister of Agriculture. When the minister poses the question, why should we say anything about the precise amounts that should be paid to livestock owners, and when he says that it would not be advisable to set a maximum value on the stock affected, all I would say in answer is that we on this side of the house know the Minister of Agriculture well. We know that he always likes to come into parliament and ask for bills that give him certain powers that he usually never uses; but if he uses them, he does not do so in such a way as to provide proper floor prices, proper compensation or anything else for the agricultural industry.
In the statements he has made the minister has certainly made it abundantly clear to everyone in the house and in Canada that his department fell down badly on the job of detecting this disease. The minister says: When I was in Regina on February 14, no one came to me and said this outbreak may be foot-and-mouth disease. If the officials of his department were on their toes, inasmuch as they had been notified of an outbreak on December 2 or 3, they could have told him not on February 14 but many weeks prior to that date that this was in fact foot-and-mouth disease. That is when steps should have been taken to correct it.
What I should like to know, for example, is what the Department of Citizenship and Immigration does in order to see that immigrants coming into Canada from areas where

Foot-and-mouth disease foot-and-mouth disease prevails are properly examined and that proper precautions are taken to see that this disease is not brought to Canada. The particular immigrant who is suspected of bringing this disease to Canada was on the farm in question as late as November 21. Five days later the disease broke out. Approximately a week later evidence was brought to the federal authorities that a disease had broken out on this farm. Yet for eleven weeks nothing was done to discover who might have carried that disease or to see that the spread of the disease was prevented. I am certainly glad that this whole question will be referred to the standing committee on agriculture so that we may find out the reason for all the delay, and so that steps may be taken to see that similar delay does not happen in the future.
I am concerned about this disease, not only because it provides a grave threat to the livestock industry throughout Canada, but because my position is similar to that of the hon. member for Lake Centre and that of the Minister of Agriculture in that part of the quarantine area is within my constituency. The minister has said that the area affected is not large. It is fifty miles long and fifty miles wide, which gives an area of some 2,500 square miles. In it, I do not know how many farms are infected. I have seen figures which indicated 25 or 30. There are probably over 2,000 farmers within that quarantine area. We want adequate compensation on the one hand for the farmer who has cattle that are infected, and we also want proper compensation for farmers in the quarantine area who are losing income because some neighbouring farms are infected with this disease.
I am wondering what the government is doing in the way of considering other possible losses to farmers within that area, farmers who do not have the disease on their farms, but who have a lot of damp grain on their farms. What kind of compensation will the government give these farmers if it should happen, as I hope it does not, that the damp grain should spoil in the spring with the continuation of the quarantine? There are many other losses with regard to this disease. If the quarantine is kept in effect for some months, if farmers are unable to market their cattle, then certain numbers of these cattle that have already passed a fair market weight and are already in good market condition must be maintained at the expense of the farmer without the farmer obtaining any more for them when he is finally able to sell them.
The announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture this morning in relation to changing the weight specifications for grades of hogs was a step in the right direction. I think that should be fair compensation to hog producers, provided the quarantine does not last too long. If a farmer has to keep a hog that is of market weight for a further few months he will not toe penalized because he has placed another fifty or a hundred pounds weight on that hog. But I think the measure that we are asked to support and pass at this time is certainly not nearly specific enough. 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 itrench 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.


Hazen Robert Argue: It does not say anything of the kind. I will read the clause to the minister:
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, after a report by a board of valuators to be appointed' by the governor in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: It means just exactly what I said. Notwithstanding the fact that that act

already provides for the other compensation, the farmer will get compensation under this legislation.


Hazen Robert Argue: The words are, "notwithstanding anything". Notwithstanding anything whatever in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act the farmer will get some nebulous thing that is fair and reasonable.


James Garfield Gardiner: More money.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps more money-let us hope so. If the minister is going to be as generous as he says he is to be, then he should have no hesitation in putting it in the legislation.
Another thing that the whole cattle industry in Canada is interested in is this. What is going to happen to the price of cattle within the next six months, within the next year and within the next two years? In an emergency such as this the government should do no less than guarantee the farmers the same commercial value for all livestock as prevailed on the markets of Canada preceding the outbreak of this disease. Farmers from one end of Canada to the other are being affected by the foot-and-mouth disease and its economic ramifications. The thing that this legislation should be doing is placing a floor under cattle prices throughout Canada, a floor to the producer and guaranteed for at least two years.
I say to the minister that if the government does at some future time decide to stabilize the cattle prices, that is to place a floor under cattle prices, I hope he is a little more generous than he was when he put the floor price under hogs. In my opinion the floor that was placed under hogs a few weeks ago was a floor so low as to prohibit farmers from making a decent return from their hogs. I say that the cattle industry of Canada needs an adequate floor, needs a floor as high as the market that prevailed before the outbreak of this disease. We need compensation for the farmers whose livestock are infected; we need a proper guarantee of minimum prices to the livestock industry throughout Canada, and we need some assurance from the government that farmers affected by the quarantine who cannot market their cattle, who cannot market their hogs, who cannot market their grain, are provided with an income and some compensation for the loss that they will experience because of the outbreak of this particular disease.


Mr. Dewar:: I had not intended to say anything in this discussion because I am not an expert like some of the previous speakers. But I have just returned to Ottawa from the Qu'Appelle constituency, where about two-thirds of the quarantined farms are located.
Foot-and-mouth disease To put this thing in its proper perspective, perhaps I had better start at the beginning and say when this thing was first brought to my attention directly as a member of parliament. Both Mr. Waas and Mr. Smith are friends of mine. They know where I live; they come to my house and I go to their houses. I might say that they both voted for me. Last Thursday Mr. Smith telephoned my house and said that he wished to have an interview with me. I told him to come on down. We spent two hours together. I can assure you that in that time not one word of unfair criticism, such as has been voiced here today by some of the members of the other side of the house, was spoken by Mr. Smith. He merely told me the story of his herd, and in substance it was what the Minister of Agriculture said here today. Then Mr. Waas' cattle became infected, and a short time later this infection appeared in Mr. Smith's cattle. As the minister has said, both these men voluntarily accepted the quarantine-they were obliged to. They have accepted that quarantine and they have abided by it. With respect to Mr. Smith's cattle, less than three weeks' time elapsed between the time that his cattle showed the disease and when they showed they were free of it.
In other words, any loss in weight they had had gone. None of Mr. Smith's cattle had died, and the same applies to Mr. Waas' cattle. There is not a man in the House of Commons or a man in Canada today who, not knowing that there had been disease and infection in that area, could go into those herds and see a thing wrong with them. No fewer than seven veterinarians have examined Mr. Smith's cattle, and all of them have said the same thing, that those cattle have not the foot-and-mouth disease.
I am inclined to agree with them, and for this reason: Surely to heavens, if as far back as November of last year some seventy-five or eighty-five cattle were affected with the foot-and-mouth disease, today one would expect at least one of them to have some sort of indication or sign to show that it had had the disease. Some might have died. But the fact is that none of them has died.
As I said, this was brought to my attention last Thursday, February 28. On February 29 Mr. Waas phoned me, and we carried on a telephone conversation. At that time he was not concerned about the government's not having tagged this as the foot-and-mouth disease, or tagged it as anything else. He was merely concerned about what was going to be contained in this measure. Their concern, granted, was with the fact that their herds would have to be destroyed. Essentially, their main concern was as to the compensation
46	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease they were going to receive. At that time I indicated that I could not, and I did not think anyone else could, make a fair statement in the matter at that time. I said also, however-and I might add that they were happy to accept this-that I felt the government would recognize this, not only as a problem under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, but that they would deal with it under separate legislation. That legislation is now to be presented to the house. I said the government would deal with it in the proper manner.
In replying to some of the observations made, the minister answered a question I had intended to ask. One of those questions was as to what was going to become of cows that were in calf, if they were purebred calves. I was asked that question by these men, and at that time I said, "Well, in the first place, how can we pay you for something you have not got? The calves have not yet been born." They said, "That is true, but they are there." I said, "I do not know they are there; no one knows." I pointed out that I assumed some sort of board, or some body of that kind, would be set up. This has now been indicated. We have been told that the board will ascertain whether there were calves, and the board will evaluate those calves in accordance with their proper commercial value, plus an overriding value. Those things cannot be spelled out individually.
In the discussion I had with these men they said they were quite happy to sacrifice their calves in that area, and they hoped the government would give proper compensation. In my opinion the bill contains all that is necessary to do that. No two herds will be the same in dollars-and-cents value. Mine may be heavier, while another person's may be lighter. But in the final analysis I believe it will be found that the most satisfactory way to establish price is the way the minister has suggested, namely, by setting up a board before which these men may present their cases.
I feel that in this instance the government will do the right and proper thing, as it did in connection with the Winnipeg flood and the disaster at Rimouski. It is a disaster-and all this political ammunition that is being stirred up by some of you fellows over there is not helping the situation a blooming bit.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth proceeds to speak, may I place on record the answers to the questions to which reference was made earlier. These answers are now placed in


my hands. With the permission of the committee, I shall read these questions and answers. The first question is:
When was the health of animals branch in Saskatchewan first notified of a vesicular disease in cattle?
The answer is: December 2, 1951. The next question is:
When was Ottawa notified?
The answer to that is: December 7, 1951.
Then, the next question is:
When did officials from Ottawa first visit the infected area?
I point out that the question uses the expression "from Ottawa". There may have been some of our officials from Regina who visited earlier. However, the answer to the question as asked is as follows:
January 15, 1952. Doctor Childs to est. 23E, Bums and Company, Regina, Saskatchewan. No report made at that time as disease considered to be common vesicular stomatitis.
Then the next question:
What did they report, and when was the first infected material delivered to the animal diseases research institute in Hull?
It would seem that I have read two questions together. The answer to the question as to when officials from Ottawa first visited the infected area is as follows:
January 15, 1952.
Then the next answer is:
February 17, 1952. Doctor Childs. At this time found sufficient clinical evidence to warrant quarantine of area in which infected herds were located and ordered immediate quarantine.
And then the last question is as follows:
What did they report, and when was the first infected material delivered to the animal diseases research institute in Hull?
The answer is:
Infected material delivered to animal diseases research institute, Hull, Quebec, February 16, 1952.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the committee to accept this answer now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Alpheus Charlton: I thank the minister for having answered the questions. However, I can assure him, when he advises us that he received them only an hour and a half before he came to the house, that they were supposed to be in his office, by hand messenger, at 11.30 this morning.
I am sorry to say that I can describe this situation properly only by saying that it is pitiful-most pitiful. It is pitiful for the farmers who have placed their trust in the Department of Agriculture. It is pitiful for the farmers who have looked to that department to look after their interests and to protect them against occurrences of this kind'-which it has done very well in the past.

Last Friday it appeared to me that the Minister of Agriculture was trying to cover up something. I see by the answer that the minister has read that notification was given to Ottawa first on December 7, with respect to this condition of disease.
Regardless of whether it was not until January 15 that anyone from Ottawa visited the area, I would point out that there are plenty of veterinary inspectors in that part of Saskatchewan. It would not be absolutely necessary for one to come from Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: There were two of them there on December 1.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand there were two inspectors on the farms on December 1, and that they made a report to Ottawa on December 7, according to the answers. On Friday last, as found at page 14 of Hansard, the minister said:
The first diagnosis of the disease in Saskatchewan was that it was stomatitis.
They mean by that vesicular stomatitis.
It takes some time to deal with a situation of that kind. Right up until last week the chief authority in the province of Saskatchewan was maintaining that that is what the disease really was. That was the situation even a week ago. I think that gives some reason for believing that the veterinarians, whether they were government veterinarians or practitioners in the area, could not be expected to have arrived at a different conclusion.
The minister also had something to say last Friday on the question of under whose authority this matter came. He said that it was definitely the health of animals branch of the dominion Department of Agriculture and not the province. If that be so, then he is trying to unload the responsibility for this diagnosis on the provincial veterinarians of Saskatchewan rather than the veterinarians of his department. I say that because it is not Dr. Fulton who is in charge of the dominion veterinary branch in Saskatchewan. It is Dr. Christie. I presume Dr. Fulton is a provincial veterinarian, and I would take it he has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation beyond co-operating with the federal authorities. According to the answer given this afternoon, Dr. Childs, the veterinary director general, did not go out there until January 15. * It was my understanding that he was out there before Christmas. As a matter of fact I understand he has made three trips to the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend may have got that impression from what I said. I said he was there twice and I thought once was before Christmas. The indication is that once was in January and the other time in February, and I am assuming that covers the whole thing.
Foot-and-mouth disease


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister said before what he has said now. I may have got that impression from the statement he made. The minister says that he made two trips, and of course he made another trip on the 16th of February just before quarantine proceedings were instituted. We will say that he did not go there the first time until the 15th of January. What happened between the 15th of January and the 16th of February? Did he not make a test in the field? I have here a letter signed by the veterinary director general, dated April 18, 1951. I am not going to read all of it but there is one short paragraph with respect to diagnosis which I think is quite significant. It reads as follows:
Diagnosis is: confirmed by animal inoculations carried* out at the site of the outbreak or suspected outbreak, test animals being brought in from a distance and from areas where vesicular diseases have not existed. The actual test inoculations are carried out by specially trained veterinarians. Introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into Canada would be disastrous to the livestock industry, particularly if the disease could not be promptly localized and eradicated.
It has been said that Dr. Childs went out there on the 15th of January. Here are the instructions given to veterinarians all across the Dominion of Canada with respect to foot-and-mouth disease:
Practitioners should keep in mind that: (a) Any vesicular disease of animals may be very dangerous. (b) It should be promptly reported to the nearest departmental veterinarian who will appreciate your co-operation in taking appropriate measures to prevent spread.
I should like to repeat the first point.
(a) Any vesicular disease of animals may be very dangerous.
This letter was sent out to all veterinarians over the signature of Dr. Childs, veterinary director general, who went out there himself on the 15th of January. If what he says as to the danger is so, why were tests not made in the field? I understand that is possible although the minister said today it is not possible to diagnose the disease without serum. I want to contradict the minister on that point because serum is not required for a diagnosis of this disease. What the serum is required for is to type the virus.


James Garfield Gardiner: To prove your diagnosis.


John Alpheus Charlton: No, it is not needed to prove the diagnosis. All it is needed for is to prove the type of virus in the infected cattle. I do not think it is very important whether or not it is typed. If we know there is foot-and-mouth disease then it is foot-and-mouth disease no matter what type it may be. When that can be ascertained in a short period of from four to six days at the outside by the injection of animals, why was it not done

Foot-and-mouth disease earlier? Surely somebody is at fault. I am not prepared to say who that party is but I think; the livestock producers of Canada have a right to know whose responsibility it is. That person should be brought before the standing committee on agriculture and he should explain the action that was taken. That is why I strongly urge a complete inquiry into the reasons and responsibility for such an unwarranted delay in the quarantine proceedings.
Obviously on December 2 there must have been some suspicion on the part of the two veterinarians of the dominion Department of Agriculture who visited the farm to which reference has been made, because they did in fact quarantine it. As I understand the situation the quarantine was not too severe, but in their own, minds they knew that a dangerous disease was involved and they decided to quarantine the farm un-til such time as it was found out what the disease was. Then we are told that from December 2 until January 15 nobody else bothered with the matter. On January 15 the veterinary director general visited the area. Did he not feel it was important enough for him to go there earlier? I do not know. The next question I had intended to ask was: What did he report? Apparently the report was vesicular stomatitis, and the minister said tha-t Dr. Childs had something to do with ordering a quarantine. Is that the same quarantine that was ordered on December 2? Was that quarantine maintained or was it a new quarantine? Last Friday the minister said that quarantine proceeding were not taken until February 20.


James Garfield Gardiner: For -the district, covering the district fifty miles square.


John Alpheus Charlton: 'That is why I asked the question last Friday and the minister said that the quarantine was instituted a week ago last Wednesday, which would be February 20. The minister referred last Friday to the Saskatchewan authorities, and I want to deal with that because it is very important. Last Friday the minister did say that the provincial authority was minor in these cases. Some pretty harsh statements have been made with regard to provincial governments enforcing embargoes and so on, that they should not be allowed to do so, -that they did not have the authority and all the rest of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would like to correct my hon, friend. I did not intend to say anyone was negligent, and I think hon. members will agree that I did not say so. As far as possible I avoided putting any responsi-


bility on the provinces, other than to say that one gentleman in Saskatoon did go to the press and make a statement.


Major James William Coldwell: Was he not merely explaining what was the diagnosis?


Mr. Knight:: Might I interrupt to follow up that point. An hour or so ago the minister referred to Dr. Fulton, wrongly, I think; it should have been Dr. Millar, who was reported to have made a public statement that the disease was not dangerous. I think I am quoting the minister correctly. Dr. Millar was talking about stomatitis, and 1 believe he was merely generalizing. I would ask the minister whether Dr. Millar gave that opinion on the diagnosis of someone else of the disease as stomatitis, or whether he himself had an opportunity to examine the cattle and make his own diagnosis, and then give that comment.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be impossible for me to know that. I only know that in Saskatchewan and every other province it has been the practice that all cases of serious disease are reported to the provincial department. I think it is the general practice that where there is any suspicion in connection with a disease they submit samples to wherever such investigations are carried out, and I understand that in Saskatchewan that place is Saskatoon. That was the case in my day, and I think it still is. I venture to suggest that what happened was the very thing that happens here every day. Everybody was talking about foot-and-mouth disease. The Canadian Press went to the university and asked the only authority they could find there, Dr. Millar, what were his views on the question, and he suggested that it was this other disease. I do not know whether that meant he had gone down personally and investigated. As will be found in Hansard, I said I did not know anything about that, that the only thing I had seen was an item in the press to the effect that it probably was not foot-and-mouth disease at all, in spite of what some of our own officials were saying at that time.


John Alpheus Charlton: I hope I did not leave the impression that these statements concerning the provinces were made by the minister himself. I did not intend to suggest that. I said many statements had been made; I did not say they had been made by the minister. Many statements were made with regard to provincial embargoes, and the minister made it very plain that this was not within the powers of the provinces, that the federal department could override that ruling if they wanted to, but they did not want to. Let me

Foot-and-mouth disease
quote something of what the minister said last Friday, dealing with who was in charge in Saskatchewan:


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the veterinarian who is at
Saskatoon in connection with the university.
He went on to say he was not certain who it was.


Major James William Coldwell: That announcement was from your department?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it was from the university
authority at Saskatoon where the virus is sent to be checked by those authorities who are in a position to check it and who have the facilities to do so. Most of our checking in Saskatchewan is done at the university, I think at the farm there. This checking was done in connection with these cases.
The minister definitely made the statement that the checking was done. I want to know when, and what were the results.
When it comes to dealing with the matter finally in order to determine whether it is foot-and-mouth disease, there is only one way in which it can be finally determined, as I understand it.
Then the minister went on to describe the situation concerning the serum, which has to to be brought from England. As I said before, in order to diagnose the disease an injection into four animals is all that is necessary. In order to type it the serum is required; but in order to diagnose it, it is only necessary to inject four animals, a horse, a cow, a guinea pig and swine. That is all that is necessary to actually diagnose whether it is one of those three diseases. Vesicular stomatitis as a rule has more effect on horses than on cattle, but it very closely resembles foot-and-mouth disease. Then there is vesicular exanthema in swine, which also closely resembles foot-and-mouth disease. So those three diseases have to be diagnosed and a differentiation made. Probably the injection of those four animals could have been done in the area itself. If it could not have been done there, surely it was the responsibility of the district veterinarian in Saskatchewan under this government, who I understand is Dr. Christie. If no one was available from the Ottawa office surely it was up to the officials of the dominion department to see that those samples were sent to a proper laboratory, whether in Saskatchewan or in Hull, in order that the determination might be made, instead of leaving it for at least seventy-six days after the first announcement.
That neglect, Mr. Chairman, or whatever you wish to call it, could cost the farmers of this country hundreds of millions of dollars, not only through the loss of livestock slaughtered because of the disease but through the loss of markets which have been very lucrative to all breeders of livestock in Canada during the last few years, particularly those interested in purebred dairy animals.
That is the situation. The minister has apparently tried to place the responsibility on the provincial veterinarian, but I believe he admitted it was the job of his own department to look after this. As I said before, somebody must take the responsibility for that terrible error, and I hope the minister will follow through his suggestion that the whole matter be brought before the agriculture committee of this house.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle said something about not being able to find any symptoms of the disease. That is one point I should like to deal with, and I wish the hon. member were in his seat at the moment. That is the particular folly of so much delay. Probably the clinical manifestations of the disease in the mouth last only four or five days. They heal up very quickly; there is no sign of the disease left, and the mortality rate is very low. So that is the thing I would criticize most in the whole affair. Now many of these animals have had the disease; they have passed through the feverish or febrile stage when those vesicles appear on the tongue, lips, nose and feet, and they appear to be quite healthy again. In such cases, unless you have the previous history, how are you going to tell whether or not those animals were ever affected? You cannot. Actually there is no way of telling, because there are such things as carriers of this disease, which give no manifestation of having had it. There is no way you can check an animal and tell definitely whether or not it is a carrier, except by good luck and probably a lot of experimentation or testing.
I cannot say too much about the seriousness of this disease. It is sometimes referred to as hoof-and-mouth disease or aphthous fever. It affects all cloven-hoofed animals, including cattle, sheep and swine, as well as many wild animals such as buffalo, deer and moose. You will all realize then how practically impossible it would be to control if it were once allowed to spread to the wild animals so abundant in this northern country.
The disease is characterized by the formation of vesicles or blisters on the mucous membrane covering the tongue, lips, cheeks, palate or other tissues of the mouth, on the skin above and between the claws of the feet, and on the teats and udder of females. In hogs, lesions most often appear on the feet, but frequently appear on the nose above the snout. In sheep, goats and deer, the feet are the most common site of infection.
As a rule these vesicles or blisters will rupture in 24 hours. In cattle the mouth

Foot-and-mouth disease lesions cause salivation, slobbering or frothiness. Mouth lesions usually heal rapidly, but secondary infections often arise in the feet. The use of so many antibiotics in the present day often becloud the clinical manifestation of the disease and make it much more difficult to detect. Mortality is not usually over five per cent, but perhaps will run up to eight per cent in young animals. In the malignant form, if it is accompanied by heart lesions, the mortality may go up as high as fifty per cent.
The infective agent in foot-and-mouth disease is a filterable virus which cannot be seen with powerful microscopes, and passes through filters which hold back the smallest bacteria. The virus is present in the fluid and coverings of vesicles, and also in the blood in the initial febrile or feverish stage of the disease. Saliva, milk, urine and other secretions may also contain the virus. The fluid and coverings of the vesicles in the animal usually lose their infectivity within from four to six days after the lesions appear, but the great danger is that this material from the body could remain alive many months, depending upon the temperature. After it has dropped off the body onto the ground, it may remain alive many months depending upon the temperature. For instance, at body temperature it may remain alive 24 to 48 hours; at room temperature, probably 8 to 10 weeks; and under refrigeration or freezing temperatures, it could remain active for years. As a matter of fact, that is the way it is kept for experimental purposes. As I said before, you will realize how dangerous it could become in climatic conditions such as we have if it were allowed to spread to our wild animals.
Some investigators believe that some animals may be carriers, as I mentioned before, and that such animals may harbour the virus for a long time after recovery. The number of such carriers, however, is believed to be small but there is strong evidence to support the theory and cases have been known to develop even after a year. Milk, meat and raw by-products of the slaughter of infected animals may be instrumental in distributing the virus. In view of recent statements regarding the provincial embargo,
I think it is only fair to point out that bone marrow may retain virus after being kept at chilling temperatures or treated by the dry or wet salt process for up to 42 days, and if kept at freezing temperatures, for up to 76 days. Regardless of what has been said in the press that there is no danger at all-


James Garfield Gardiner: No danger in eating the meat.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not say anything about eating the meat. The danger is in spreading the disease by shipping meat from one province to the other.


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as I am concerned there has been no statement made other than that eating the meat will not give anyone the disease.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is quite debatable, too. Some textbooks say humans are resistant to it, some even going so far as to say it is impossible for humans to contract the disease. Other textbooks say that they may. I am not going to enter into that argument. I shall leave it for the medical profession. It does not alter the fact, however, that in many cases bone marrow that has been taken from beef frozen for 76 days has infected cattle with the disease, so it naturally must have retained its infectivity for that long.
As I said before, the disease can be carried for considerable distance. Have any cattle infected with the disease been killed in Saskatchewan? Were any disease conditions ever reported by abattoirs in the Regina area? Was there any of this diseased meat shipped to the west or the south? We do not know. I believe the minister should have the answers to those questions. Probably he can answer them at a later date, but it is important to trace that meat, wherever it might have gone, if it happened to be from diseased animals.
Unfortunately there is no practical vaccination or cure for the disease which spreads like wildfire and must be fought quickly and effectively lest it become a conflagration. Every livestock producer should know the facts about foot-and-mouth disease. According to the reports that we have, and according to what I have been told, it is quite apparent that some of the farmers knew more than some of the veterinarians. We understand that many farmers suggested to the veterinarians that this was foot-and-mouth disease. The farmers were fearful of it, but apparently some of the veterinarians stuck to the idea that it was merely vesicular stomatitis. Tests were not conducted to prove it, and therefore the farmer said: These veterinarians know more than we do about it, and let it go at that.
It is very important, Mr. Chairman, that every livestock producer should know the facts about foot-and-mouth disease. I therefore suggest that the government should advertise in some suitable way the symptoms and clinical manifestations of the disease, so that farmers would immediately report any suspicious cases in the shortest possible time. I may also point out that there are

two other diseases, as I said before, vesicular stomatitis and vesicular exanthema of swine that resemble foot-and-mouth disease very closely. It is not difficult, however, to diagnose these diseases if inoculations are given, but they are not distinguishable without these inoculations. It is very dangerous, therefore, for anyone to try to make a diagnosis by visual means only.
The present situation has already proven tc be economically disastrous to thousands of cattle producers across Canada. It has caused a loss, not only through the fact that many herds have had to be slaughtered-that is where the compensation comes in, and that is where this bill is not adequate. It does not state what the compensation will be. This will lead to people attempting to conceal the fact that they may have diseased cattle. If those cattle were diseased two months ago, you cannot prove now that they once had disease, unless you have the case history or unless the man is willing to admit that he had some sick cattle. In that case they can probably be destroyed. But do you think that a man who has a $15,000 bull which he has just paid for, for which he probably has a receipt, and who keeps a herd of about forty or fifty dairy cows, is going to admit that he has disease among his cattle when he knows he is going to get about $200 or $300 for that $15,000 bull? You could not blame him if he did not. Yet the mortality rate is only about five per cent. The cattle get over the disease quickly. They show vesicles in the mouth for four to six days and unless secondary infection starts in the feet, then probably you never notice the disease. On the range you probably would not notice it. As I say, the cattle get over the disease. Then it is difficult to do anything at all.
Unless people know that they are going to get the full value for their cattle, they are probably going to try to hide the fact that they have disease, and then get rid of them as soon as they can to some unsuspecting person. It is exceedingly important that the clinical manifestations should be known to every farmer and livestock producer across this country. He should be told plainly and made to understand that he is going to get the full value for those cattle. Otherwise he will be inclined to hide the fact that they have had disease, and might not report it. I would therefore urge the government to make in this new bill some definite commitment with regard to the value. We do not want to hold up the bill. That is the last thing we have in mind. I might say in passing that while the minister was criticizing
Foot-and-mouth disease us for holding it up this afternoon, I think he has taken up more time in the debate than has anyone else.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not criticized anybody.


John Alpheus Charlton: The bill is going to go through all right, as far as I am concerned; but I still plead with the minister to put something more definite in the bill. Otherwise I am afraid that he will run into the situation that I have suggested, namely that people will be inclined to hide the fact that their cattle may have had disease.


Mr. Fair:: Mr. Chairman, most of the discussion that has taken place so far this afternoon would indicate that this is a family problem in the province of Saskatchewan. In my opinion, however, it is a matter of vital interest to residents of every province in Canada. It concerns not only the farmers but those who live in the villages, towns and cities as well. We have had a good deal of information given to us by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I believe that is necessary because, as far as I know, this is the first occasion on which we have had any experience with this dread foot-and-mouth disease which is at the present time prevalent in the Regina district. While I am a number of miles from that section, my territory borders on the province of Saskatchewan. For that reason I feel that I should say at least a few words.
Only this morning, from the secretary of one of the feeder associations, many of which are operating in my territory, I received a resolution. He and the other members of the association are greatly worried about the embargo that has been placed on the shipment of cattle between provinces, and on behalf of his members he says he would like to see that embargo removed. He also pointed out that because of the condition of the grain in that part of the country-much of which has been threshed tough, is still under the snow, in the swath and still standing-they are making use of it for feeding livestock, in order to dispose of it. He has pointed out that the farmers have bought much of their stock at prices ranging from 27 cents to 30 cents per pound, and that unless something is done in connection with setting a floor price, many of the farmers who purchased stock may be ruined financially. He has therefore advocated strongly the removal of the embargo as between provinces and also a support price. I hope the support price will not be for the packers only, as has been the case in the past in connection with hog support prices.

Foot-and-mouth disease
There is one other vital matter that I wish to take up at this time, and I may have something more to say in connection with it later on in the week. I refer to the compensation paid to farmers whose stock will be or has already been destroyed. We are told that the Department of Finance will have a member on the board that is sitting. While they will have something to do with the amount of money being paid out, we find that they will also have something to do-at least, they have in the past-with taking away from those farmers some of the money that is paid to them for their livestock and other products.
Because this is a matter that is forced upon the farmers and is entirely detrimental to their interests, I am now suggesting that the government-the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and their colleagues-give favourable consideration to exempting from income tax any amount that may be paid by way of compensation. I think this is absolutely necessary. Otherwise the government will be collecting income tax on capital investment. While the farmers affected will not be able to replace their stock until the danger of the outbreak is entirely removed, eventually they will have to reinvest this amount of compensation for the purpose of re-stocking their farms. I believe that is a sound argument and one that should be taken into consideration by the government.
Just because farmers at the present time are receiving fairly good prices for their livestock-in fact, very good prices-as compared with those they received in the depression years and which in the past have been used for comparison purposes by members of the government, I do not feel that the government should now kill the goose that laid the golden egg. In all parts of Canada we are dependent upon the livestock products of the western provinces. It is true that livestock are shipped to some other parts of the country for feeding purposes, but the prairie provinces are the main source of supply.
I believe that the government would be well advised to take these suggestions into consideration. I believe that everything possible should be done to stamp out the disease just as soon as it is possible to do so. If it costs the country a little bit of money to bring about that result, I think that is quite all right. The livestock industry must be carried on. At the present time it is worth millions of dollars. The government has collected from it millions of dollars in income tax. I think one of the first duties of the government is to see that the disease is stamped out and that the livestock industry continues in a prosperous condition.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on this matter, probably from a different angle. I represent a dairy farming section, not beef country, and I would not want the impression to go abroad in Canada that the farmers are here with a "gimme-gimme" attitude. That sort of thing might have been done in the past. I think too much emphasis has been put on the record of the farmers. I do not know whether this particular individual in question is a carrier of the disease or not. There are in this house only two or three men who are medical men and who are competent to pass judgment on the matter. But suppose he was a carrier. He came from the city of Vancouver, and according to press reports he was looking for work on the farm. From Vancouver, if he was looking for employment on the farm, the natural place for him to go would be to Fraser valley. The hon. member for Lake Centre laughs. I am talking from the serious point of view, not from the selfish point of view of the recompense of one or two farmers. It is conservatively estimated that the Fraser valley produces 75 per cent of the milk consumed in the whole province of British Columbia. For instance, Coast-Capilano gets all its milk from Fraser valley.


John Lorne MacDougall: What about Burrard?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute, now. The people of Vancouver will be very proud of that Burrard interjection. 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.


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


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not interrupt you. It is 35 miles wide. I wonder how serious it would be to the consumer. We even ship milk to Kamloops, to Skeena and Prince Rupert. We ship it to Victoria and to Nanaimo from the Fraser valley. Just imagine how serious it would be to the mothers and the people of British Columbia if that disease should get into our province. As I said, in a small area 35 miles wide and 65 miles long, if the disease got into one farm say in the centre of the valley it would be only 48 hours or so before the whole valley would be quarantined and there would be no fluid milk for British Columbia. It is not all a matter of recompense to the farmer. Some of the members representing the consumer ridings should have something to say about this.
I am not particularly worried about what has happened in the past, although I know what I would do with two or three of the officials of the Department of Agriculture if
* See page 109.

they were working on my farm. I would fire them and let them wait for their pay if in my opinion they were so inefficient. There is no use worrying about what has happened in the past. I hope the federal and provincial governments will take any steps that are necessary, po matter how drastic they may be, no matter how they may hurt some of us, to prevent the final ruination of the dairy industry in Canada. We had one slap a couple of years ago. A certain group almost ruined the dairy industry, and if this disease ever hits the dairy industry-let the beef cattle industry speak for itself-it will be a pretty serious day for the consumers. I hope the federal minister will take whatever steps he thinks are necessary, and that he will permit the provincial ministers to take whatever steps they deem necessary, no matter how drastic, to prevent any further spread of this disease.


Mr. Pearkes:: When the information came that this disease bad broken out in December great concern was felt in British Columbia for some of the reasons which have already been mentioned by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. During the summertime our cattle on the cattle ranches range all through the foothills and the lower slopes of the mountains. These forests are inhabited by large numbers of wild animals: moose, elk, deer, and on the higher ranges sheep, goats and so forth. If this disease ever gets into that wildlife it will take years and years for it to be eradicated, and there will always be the constant danger of our beef and dairy herds being infected by the disease carried by the wildlife of the province. For that reason the provincial government of British Columbia at once put a ban on the import of stock and meat and other products from the prairie provinces, which might possibly carry that infection. I am surprised to see in tonight's paper that, according to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture this morining, the Canadian ban on the United States livestock, meat and so forth coming into Canada might force provinces to lift the barriers. I must say that we do not want the federal government to force the government of the province of British Columbia to lift the barrier so that there might be a danger of this infection coming into our herds, be they dairy or beef cattle, or be it amongst the wildlife. I cannot think of anything which would be more serious than that.
I cannot understand the attitude of the government in trying to force the province of British Columbia to raise the restriction which the provincial government saw fit to place in order to protect the dairy and beef
Foot-and-mouth disease industries of that province. We do not raise enough beef in British Columbia to supply all the meat that is required in the great city of Vancouver and in the other cities of the province. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley has said, from that valley dairy products are exported all over British Columbia, and every section of the province would suffer if the disease entered into the Fraser valley dairy herds. Therefore I fail to understand what is behind the government's intention here which, according to a Canadian Press dispatch in an Ottawa paper, is apparently an effort to break Quebec and British Columbia restrictions on interprovincial livestock and meat shipments. I do sincerely hope that this government will take ho steps whatever to limit in any way the very sound and reasonable methods which the provincial government is taking to prevent the spread of this disease into British Columbia.
There is one question I should like to ask the minister. While he was out in British Columbia last week instructions were issued -I do not say from the minister but from the health of animals branch-that an embargo had been placed on the export of fur-bearing animals and of pelts from Canada to the United States. I know that the fur breeders tried to get in touch with the minister while he was in British Columbia. I do not know whether they were successful or not. Can he say whether an embargo has been placed on the export of pelts of furbearing animals?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say. I will find out before the evening sitting whether that has been done. I assume that the question relates to this same matter.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, because of this disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the other question I
might only say that I did meet a press conference this morning and I was asked the question I think a number of times as to whether the intent was what has been stated. I said that it could have that effect; I did not say that that was the intent of it.


Mr. Wright:: 1 do not intend to speak at any great length at this time on this question, but there are one or two things I want to say. First I want to compliment the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth on the very fine speech which he made and on the information which he gave to the committee on this disease. I myself was not aware that this disease could have been diagnosed, before it was, as simply as he described the method to us. From the information that had been given up to date in the house I was

Foot-and-mouth disease under the impression that it required a considerable time to determine this disease. If what the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth said is correct, and I would assume it is, since he is a veterinarian, then it makes it more difficult to explain why the disease was not detected sooner. There must have been some neglect somewhere in regard to that.
I think however that if the minister-as I believe he has-accepts the proposition that this matter should come before the committee on agriculture, witnesses could be brought before that committee and exact details outlined. That should satisfy the house that the matter will be dealt with. I do not think it is the intention of the official opposition-and certainly it is not our intention-to hold up passage of the bill at this time. It is important that people in the area affected should have the assurance that immediate action is being taken.
Then, there is one further matter I would bring to the attention of the minister, as well as to that of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Just a few days ago I left Europe. I noted that before I took the aircraft at Prestwick in Scotland I was requested to make a declaration that I had not been in an area in which foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent. Before I was permitted to disembark from that aircraft in Iceland the Icelandic authorities demanded that they be given a signed statement from all passengers who were disembarking for only a short time that they had not been in such infected areas. Otherwise those passengers would not have been allowed to disembark, even for only a few moments.
No similar precaution was taken upon my entering Canada. I was not asked here whether I had been in any area in Europe where the foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent. We hear the report that the disease was brought in by an immigrant, although that has not yet been clearly established. It seems probable however that this is so. We have had an extensive immigration from Holland and Germany in the past year, although we know that the disease in question is prevalent in both those countries. I doubt whether any proper precautionary measures were taken when those immigrants from Germany, Holland and other European countries entered Canada, or whether any investigation was made as to whether they had been in areas in which that disease has existed for some considerable time.
Those people have been going to our farms. From information I have it is my belief that


there has been neglect or, let us say, carelessness, in not keeping a closer check on immigrants coming to Canada. We have known about the seriousness of the disease. We realize that the livestock industry is one of the basic industries of our country; and with this information in mind I say every precaution should have been taken to protect our industry from this scourge.
The second point I would place before the minister refers to the contents of the bill itself. I believe we can leave it to the minister and to the board to see that fair compensation is paid. If it is not paid, then most certainly there will be plenty of criticism during the process of the settlement of claims. However, the bill, as I read it, makes no provision for any compensation whatever to those who, while not directly affected by the disease, are in the area and are going to suffer serious financial loss as a result of the quarantine provisions. Before the bill is passed I would ask the minister to tell us whether these other people who, as I say, will be seriously inconvenienced and will suffer financial loss, are to receive compensation for that loss, despite the fact that their herds or farms may not be directly affected, and none of their property destroyed.
These people will suffer serious loss, and I would hope that before the bill passes the minister would tell us that the board to be set up will have authority to deal with this matter. As I read the bill it does not now contain such authority, and unless the minister will say that such authority is contained within it, I suggest he should be prepared to offer an amendment whereby it would be given.
These matters will arise because there are people in the area who have dairy herds and who will not be permitted to market their milk. There are others who will not be permitted to market their hogs. So far as the hog situation is concerned, I think the regulations to be passed will be helpful. However, they will not solve the problem completely. I am sure the minister will agree that, at best, we will have reached January 1, 1953, before we will be able to lift the embargo now placed on this area.
In the meantime the stock will have to remain on the farms. I say the bill should contain authority whereby the board to be appointed could give compensation to those who will suffer financial loss, although their property may not be destroyed.
These are the two points I wanted to bring to the attention of the government. First, I do not think proper precautions are being taken so far as immigrants are concerned.

Those precautions should be taken immediately. And if the bill does not contain a provision such as I have suggested, then the minister should be prepared to amend it accordingly.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the resolution carry?


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest that we pass the resolution before six o'clock so that we may then have the bill before us?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Fleming:: May we have the bill now, whether the resolution is passed or not? It would be of very little help to us if it were not circulated before second reading.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe about twenty copies have now been made available, and I shall be happy to send one to the hon. member.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are they not available for distribution among all the members?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would suggest that we give first reading, and then the bill might be distributed as widely as possible before eight o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: There should be no difficulty in having this bill mimeographed so that copies could be placed on each desk.


James Garfield Gardiner: If we passed the resolution now, the bill could be made available to hon. members this evening.


George Alexander Drew: No; there will be plenty of time to deal with the matter this evening. The bill will not be advanced in any way by passing the resolution now. There are some who have speeches to make, or who have indicated their desire to do so.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Just before six o'clock the hon. member for Melfort made some reference to the possibility that action might be taken by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to immigrants. Without attempting to enter into an explanation about the difficulties at the moment, because after all examination of the immigrant in question has not been completed, I think I should point out one or two facts. First of all I think it was essential that we should locate this immigrant at the earliest possible moment in order
Foot-and-mouth disease to examine him, and the remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Lake Centre, who spoke somewhat contemptuously of the efforts that were being made, struck me as being unrealistic. If at this time we had not been taking steps to locate this man I am sure we would have been accused of indifference to what is a very serious problem in the west. I say this without attempting to suggest in any way that possibly the immigrant in question might have caused the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
The facts are these: Willi Bruntjen entered our immigration office in Vancouver last week, and since that time has co-operated fully with us in explaining his whereabouts and everything else about which we have asked him to tell us. He has co-operated in allowing tests to be made of his clothing and personal effects. He was granted a visa in Germany on the 18th of September, finished working on the 13th of October, sailed for Canada on the 19th, arrived on the 29th, went directly to the Regina area, was placed on the farm on the 2nd of November and remained there until the 5th. I understand from what has been said here that the disease was first noticed on the 26th of November.
As I think everyone knows, in the past fifty years we have accepted somewhere between three million and four million immigrants from continental Europe. We have also received a great many visitors from Europe and we have received a great many returning Canadians. Therefore it would seem quite unlikely that this disease might have been transmitted in the manner that has been suggested. Nevertheless under the circumstances we have thought it desirable to take some additional precautions at the moment. As from today no immigrant farmers or farm workers will be recruited or selected abroad if they are from an area where foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent. Second, no immigrant farmers or farm workers already selected, who may now be coming from an infected area abroad, will be placed in employment on farms until they and their effects have been thoroughly disinfected. I know hon. members will realize that this may slow down the movement of farm workers at this time but I am quite sure that the inconvenience will be accepted in view of the fact that we should be particularly careful until all other possible causes have been investigated.


James Arthur Ross: I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration either misunderstood the hon. member for Lake Centre or was a little unfair to him. I followed the hon. member for Lake Centre-

Foot-and-mouth disease


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Mel-fort.


James Arthur Ross: He referred to both the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Lake Centre. The hon. member for Lake Centre expressed exactly the same doubts I hold when he asked how the department was going to prove, by means of the laboratory test being conducted in Hull, whether this immigrant from Germany had picked up the virus where he worked on this Saskatchewan farm or had brought it to this country with him. I hold exactly the same doubts. I have read in the newspapers that the immigrant in question has made statements to the R.C.M.P. to the effect that he is feeling very bad about the situation, and that immediately prior to his departure from Europe he had worked on a farm where the entire herd had the dreaded foot-and-mouth disease. That is the statement he has made.
The point that bothers me is how the department expects to be able to clear up by the laboratory test whether he actually brought the virus to Canada or picked it up in the Regina area. I do not believe the minister can make that clear to me. Is that possible? I have that doubt, and I think you cannot prove anything by all the investigation now being carried on in the laboratory in Hull. When the Minister of Agriculture made his statement on Friday he said we had been extremely fortunate and lucky in Canada that we had not had any such dreaded disease heretofore. Having followed his statements and the debate in the house today, I certainly agree with him that we have been extremely fortunate and lucky. In fact from what evidence we have so far I am rather doubtful as to what protection our livestock breeders have against such a disease being brought into this country from Mexico, Europe or other places. According to the information we have received we have very little protection against this virus or disease being brought into the country.
I represent a constituency adjoining Saskatchewan. It is one where many livestock are raised, both commercial and purebred herds. The people who are producing purebred cattle have made great strides over the past years, especially in the western part of Canada. They have built up a very worthwhile industry. I do not know of anything that has hit an important industry with such an effect as the announcement of this dreaded disease at this time. It affects the entire cattle industry of Canada, and I think it will have repercussions on our whole economy far beyond what many of us realize at this time. I listened closely to the minister's radio address this morning and his appeal to the people of the nation. I must confess that, while I agreed

with much of what he said about extending the hog marketing policy a bit, I was very disappointed in another respect because I think the most important factor today is to encourage the cattle industry and prevent the operators from becoming panicky. It is true that the bill does certain things for those people who are having their herds slaughtered. We are all concerned about their being properly compensated, but the all-important factor is that the government of the day should do something to lend encouragement and stability to this great industry at the present time.
In the part of the country where I live we have no evidence of this disease and I hope we do not have, but I know that my neighbours are panicky and many of them would like to get out of the cattle business right now. I feel that would be bad for them and bad for the country. Therefore I hope the government will see its way clear before too much time elapses to take action under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, or some such measure, to institute floor prices.
During the period, from November 26 until this dreaded disease was announced, it is a coincidence that for one reason or another the livestock markets of this country were battered down by $50 or $60 a head on the average. Since the announcement of this disease the market has dropped another $50 or $60 a head on the average animal, or by something like 5 cents a pound live weight. You can understand what this means to those who have built up this industry and who have a heavy investment in it. Therefore I think it most important that quite apart from the measure now before us the government immediately assure the producers of this country of a floor price, in order to encourage this great industry. As I say, nothing has ever come as such a shock to this country. The cattle industry is very important in Canada, and if it is affected that in turn will have an effect on our entire economy.
With regard to the board, I cannot quite picture how they are going to arrive at a settlement under this proposed bill. I listened to the minister this morning on the radio announce the members of the board, all outstanding men in this country; but I was surprised that its membership did not include a man associated with the industry of livestock breeding. It is true that one of the members has been in charge of community pastures under P.F.R.A., and he is a fine individual. Certainly Mr. Robertson, secretary of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, is also an outstanding man, and there is a representative of the treasury department. In fairness to the livestock breeders, however, I should have thought they would be represented on

the board. On Friday evening, I think it was, I listened to a radio broadcast following the news in which Mr. Beatty was being interviewed on how he first discovered this disease and what were his future plans. He gave the history of the development of his herd, and said that from now on he certainly was through with the cattle business. Many others who will not have their herds slaughtered feel the same way about it. They believe they are taking too much of a chance, and I fear for the future of this great industry if the government does not act very quickly.
When it comes to fixing the value of an animal, that will not be so difficult in connection with commercial cattle as it will be in the case of the man who is losing a purebred registered herd. Some of the prices that have been paid in recent years for herd sires and even for females have been fabulous, running into many thousands of dollars, as compared with a few hundred for the commercial animal. That in itself will give hon. members some idea of the difficulty the board will have in arriving at reasonable settlements for the loss of these animals.
I believe this bill gives very wide powers, and I should think that great caution would have to be observed. Again I want to say I am disappointed in the terms of this legislation. While the members of the committee are outstanding individuals, personally I am very disappointed as far as their personal knowledge of the livestock industry is concerned. In listening to the minister this morning I was also disappointed when he stated that this government was immediately placing an embargo on the importation of livestock and meat from the United States, after the statement on Friday afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reply to a question by the hon. member for Melfort. It had been falsely reported in the press that this government intended to retaliate against the United States government by placing an embargo against dairy products and so on, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce replied that while the government was not satisfied with the way the United States had dealt with us in regard to foodstuffs we certainly would not retaliate in that way. I do not think the statement of the Minister of Agriculture today on behalf of the government was in keeping with the policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe the idea behind the announcement of the embargo was that this government did not wish to face up to the situation created by the imposition of provincial embargoes. Personally I regret those embargoes, yet I can understand the position of the provinces. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Nanaimo this afternoon,
Foot-and-mouth disease British Columbia acted very quickly because they were afraid this disease might be brought into their province, and if it spread among the wildlife there it would be impossible to run down.


John Lorne MacDougall: British Columbia always acts quickly.


James Arthur Ross: That is all to the good, but I think their action this time was quite unconstitutional. In any event, by acting in that way the provinces have increased the difficulties of the cattle producers as a whole, because when the United States authorities are considering this matter and find that we have provincial embargoes from coast to coast in this country, it will not make it any easier to get them to lift their embargo against our products once this difficulty is cleared up. I could not help thinking of the same thing this afternoon when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was speaking. He said some of these diseased herds were in his riding. I know something of the Qu'Appelle valley. These herds near Regina are in the untimbered part of the country, but if that disease were to spread further down the valley, which is thickly populated with jumping deer and other wildlife, I do not know how it would ever be possible to stamp it out.
This is a very serious problem. For the information of the cattle producers of this country I hope the suggestion made this afternoon will be adopted and this whole question referred to the standing committee of this house on agriculture. I do not suggest that this bill should be held up until that time, but I would like that done so these officials may be called before the committee and this whole matter thoroughly ironed out. This afternoon my colleague the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth rendered both this house and the cattle producers a very great service in the scientific speech he made and the material he placed on record. He was very enlightening, and I think deserves great credit for his effort. If that can be followed up in the committee on agriculture I think a great deal of useful information may be obtained not only for those hon. members who are interested but more particularly for the cattle producers of this country.
Again I want to appeal to the government as earnestly as I can to take some action quite apart from the compensation of those who are losing their herds, to encourage the producers of purebred stock as well as the producers of commercial stock so they may carry on with some degree of confidence, in the knowledge that there will be at least a floor price. I think that is very important to this industry and to the economy of this nation.

Foot-and-mouth disease


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, since coming into this house I have not read a bill less technical and containing fewer legal expressions than this one. In fact you would think it was written by a farmer or a farmer's wife. There is only one word-"extirpate"- which some farmers might not understand; but if they did not their wives would soon tell them it is what you do with mustard that grows on your farm. You just rip it out. I think the language of this bill is very plain and simple, and I do not think we need a lot more information in order to understand it. When I think of those farmers who have lost their cattle, when I see pictures of the carcasses piled in a great hole, I do not think we should wait very long before getting the compensation to those who have suffered. I hope all the rest of the speeches from now on will be as short as mine.


Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg North):: This afternoon the member for Battle River said that this was not a family problem, in other words it was not one which affected Saskatchewan only but one which affected every province in this country. In my opinion it is also not a rural problem only, but one which affects every Canadian, for we may be faced with an emergency of national importance. When we consider that we have lost our market for beef in the United States, we can realize it is something which affects every one of us in one way or (another. Those who are directly affected are the farmers in the area in which the quarantine has been imposed. Others affected are the grain producers, the feed producers and, of course, the tradesmen who are dependent upon them.
But there are others who are just as directly and just as adversely affected. I refer to the question which my leader, the member for Rosetown-Biggar, asked in this house on Friday. He asked if the government had arrived at any policy which they were going to pursue in regard to those packing house employees in Regina who were out of work through no fault of their own. The minister answered that it was the intention of the government to introduce legislation. I find it difficult to ascertain in what way this legislation covers those men and women who are unemployed. There are two plants in Regina that are closed, the smaller one is Intercontinental and the larger one is Burns. There are some 300 families of packing house workers who are directly and adversely affected by the discovery of foot-and-mouth disease in this country.
I agree that those farmers who have suffered ought to be given compensation, but I am prepared to argue that those workers who are


affected should also receive some compensation. I should like to know what the intentions of the government are in this respect. I believe the companies have been approached by Mr. Dowling, who is the national director of the packing house workers, to see what they were prepared to do. Not unnaturally, they are not prepared to do a great deal. Both the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister received telegrams on Friday from Mr. F. W. Dowling, who as I say is the national director of the united packinghouse workers in Canada. The telegram reads:
Understand government has announced its intention to compensate farmers and packing companies for loss incurred in quarantine due to hoof-and-mouth disease. Please advise if similar compensation contemplated for packing plant employees for loss of employment.
I have no means of knowing whether or not that telegram has been answered, but I should like to know from the minister what the intentions of the government are towards compensating those who have lost employment through foot-and-mouth disease.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, those who have spoken so far have, for the most part, been agriculturists, and they have dealt fully with their aspect of the problem. I should like to speak now as a consumer, and as one engaged in industry, to say what I believe this gross negligence on the part of the government is going to do to the economy of this country as a whole. From the evidence that was presented this afternoon, it was obvious to anybody in this chamber that something very close to hoof-and-mouth disease was diagnosed in Saskatchewan on December 7. As was so ably pointed out by the member for Brant-Wentworth this afternoon, it could have been definitely known within six days whether that disease was or was not hoof-and-mouth disease.
It seems to me that when you are dealing with something as dangerous as hoof-and-mouth disease, the obvious thing for the members of the Department of Agriculture to do is to make a positive test to decide whether that disease is or is not hoof-and-mouth disease. Nothing was done for two and a half months. During that two and a half months, an incalculable number of carriers have been allowed to roam abroad. Many of them may easily have been shipped1 to other parts of this country. They may be spreading the disease at this very moment. As was pointed out by the member for Bramt-Went-worth, there is no way you can tell whether or not they are spreading that disease.
The result of this delay will probably be that it will take years before the United States border is again opened to Canadian

cattle. If that disease had been properly diagnosed within the six days following the first diagnosis on December 7, I believe it is obvious, from what has been said this afternoon, that the area could have been properly quarantined and the disease brought under control. Each year that the United States border is closed to Canadian cattle, it is going to cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars. This loss will be felt by every consumer, every industrial worker, and every manufacturer, as well as every farmer in this country-in fact, it is going to be felt acutely by every Canadian. There will be that much less purchasing power in the country. Retail trade and employment will be seriously affected. The result is going to be great upon our whole economy. This gross negligence, indeed it comes close to criminal negligence on the part of the government, is something for which this government will have to answer to the Canadian people in the near future.
As a businessman, I should like to comment on this bill. It is proposed not to state the basis on which recompense is going to be made to the farmers who declare that they have cattle which may have been infected. I believe it is obvious to any member in this chamber that if one has a choice as to whether or not to declare these cattle, especially if one has valuable cattle, the temptation to refrain from declaring them, unless you know the basis upon which you are going to be recompensed, will be very great. After all, we are all human beings. If one has put thousands of dollars into cattle and may only receive a few hundred dollars in return for them, one is going to think twice before voluntarily turning them over to be slaughtered. I think the only fair thing to do in this respect is to let the farmers know the basis upon which they will be paid for the cattle which they voluntarily declare. Only in that way will you stop spreading carriers right across this country; only in that way will this disease be stamped out at some reasonable time in the future, and the United States border reopened. This is vitally important to our whole Canadian economy. On that basis I do appeal to the government to state the basis upon which payments will be made, so that farmers will bring their cattle forward and all carriers will be stamped out at the earliest possible opportunity.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: For a moment I should like to return to a matter which may seem relatively unimportant when compared to the larger issues, but I think it is important in that there might be some reflection upon the
Foot-and-mouth disease professional reputation of a veterinarian who resides in my own city. I refer to Dr. J. L. Millar, a veterinarian at the university of Saskatchewan. I want to put the record straight, and I think the minister would desire that I do so.
I do not believe the minister intended to convey any impression that Dr. Millar had had an opportunity to diagnose this particular disease, and then having done so declared that stomatitis in cattle was not a serious matter. It is possible that that impression might be gained from the minister's words. I think it is not probable, but it is possible. The minister mentioned but did not quote the report that he had seen in the Vancouver paper.


James Garfield Gardiner: I read it into Hansard this afternoon.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister will be doing a good deal of talking later on. If he will allow me to do so, I think that I shall put on the record the exact quotation from the Vancouver Daily Province of Thursday, February 21, 1952. It originated in Saskatoon. It is a Canadian Press dispatch and it reads as follows:
Dr. J. L. Millar of the University of Saskatchewan animal disease laboratory said Wednesday infectious stomatitis,-
And I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to note the words that follow immediately.
-as reported in cattle in the Regina area, is not considered serious by veterinarians, although symptoms are similar to those of hoof-and-mouth disease.
That is the relevant part of the quotation from the Vancouver Daily Province. Now, if I may, I should like to quote from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of February 20. The words are not much different, but I would ask you to note the words "such as reported":
Infectious stomatitis such as reported among cattle in the Regina area was not considered a serious disease by veterinarians, Dr. J. L. Millar, of the animal diseases laboratory, University of Saskatchewan, said Tuesday.
That in no way implies that Dr. Millar had himself diagnosed the disease, or had had an opportunity to do so.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the faint applause, by which I know that there are at least some people who are interested in this great national disaster. I cannot help but think of the seriousness of this problem. There is no one who has had experience in farming or in observing the general economy of this country who has not heard for many years about agriculture being the basic industry of Canada. I have always been a farmer. I have lived no place else except on the farm.
60	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease Despite the fact that some of my friends say that I am interested in some other problems, and although I have been interested in a great many activities in this dominion, there is no interest that is quite so close to my life as is that of agriculture.
There is no one who knows anything about agriculture who does not know that the foundation of that great basic industry is the livestock industry. For a quarter of a century I have listened in this house to members from western Canada telling us about the great potentialities of wheat and about Canada being the great bread basket of the world. I have even heard my gallant friend, the Minister of Agriculture, tell about wheat, of how people could almost live on wheat alone, of how bread and bread alone would almost sustain you, and say that when the cattle business was washed up, you could live on cereals. I know that he will recall that speech. It was one of his best. That was when the situation looked black and when he thought that even Canadians could live on wheat alone. But, Mr. Chairman, when you hit at the livestock industry, you hit at the great basis of agriculture. If I have not done anything else in my life, I have at least tried to be a livestock man. I listened to the hon. member from a Toronto constituency speak about the consumer. I have been interested as a farmer and as a purebred livestock producer. I have no more right than has anyone else to expect from the government something to which I am not entitled if my herds were hit by this dread disease. I hope that no one will think that I am speaking purely from a personal standpoint. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, I note, is in his seat. He has more cattle than I have; even though they are not quite as high class, he expects to turn them over fast. He is probably going to take a greater loss than I have taken; but each of us will take a loss which is greater than either of us at one time ever expected to make.
This matter is something that far transcends politics, Mr. Chairman. It hits at the economy of this country, at an industry that brought into this country $125 million to $150 million per year in itself, to say nothing of the diversified advantages connected with it.
I can well recall, as I know the Minister of Agriculture will also, one of the members on this side of the house who was later made a senator saying that western Canadians should soon find out that they cannot keep agriculture sound on wheat alone. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that he mentioned the cowless,


sowless, chickenless farmer, and said that you can never return the fertility of the soil if you have not a sound livestock industry.
As I know some of the members in this house on this side will recall, for many years I have talked about the importance of maintaining a balanced agriculture by maintaining a sound livestock industry. I have harped on the subject so much that some may have thought it had become an obsession; but after observing the conversion of the Minister of Agriculture himself and finding that at last he even became a livestock man, I ceased to voice those sentiments because I thought the battle was won. But I now realize that not only had this government and the party which sits to your right almost ruined the livestock industry by New Zealand butter back in 1930, but they have almost oleomargarined the dairy industry out of business recently. I am hesitant to say why.
I listened to the nimble performance of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. He was quieter in voice and more silent in manner than I have ever known him to be in this house. Knowing him so well, I know that his case was weak. Otherwise he would have been much more vociferous and much louder in his remarks. I know he was touching the matter tenderly. He was wondering about the mistakes of the local veterinarians, wondering about the bureaucracy built up in his own department, and wondering who was to blame, but knowing at heart that somebody must be to blame for a catastrophe that may mean the loss of millions of dollars at a time when our economy is fading just a little bit, at a time when things are going a little bit slowly.
I listened to the hon. member for Fort William. I know something about Fort William. There are not nearly as many cows in the Fort William district as there are voters. I know that he. could glibly pass it by, but in my riding I will say to my hon. friend that things are a great deal different. When we are in Fort William, he and I are interested in finding labour for a large number of men, in finding a happy living for them and ensuring a high standard of living for industrial workers. But in Dufferin-Simcoe, as in other places that I could name in this dominion-as, for instance, in the riding of the hon. member who spoke this afternoon and who is himself a veterinary scientist; I refer to the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, who laid the cards on the table before this house in a scientific and not a political manner-the situation is different. This strikes at the very lifeblood of the economy of the riding of the hon. member for Brant-Went worth, of the

parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, of the hon. member to my left and of several hon. members around here. Farmers have been selling their dairy and purebred heifers to the United States of America for $400, $500 and $600 apiece. Many farmers have been selling $5,000, $6,000 and $7,000 worth.


Mr. McCusker:: How much income tax are they paying?


William Earl Rowe: I am not sure, but from the way you send your inspectors around and from the way you hound them for every dollar that they make, and then spend it more recklessly than if it were left with them, I am sure they are paying enough. These men are very vitally concerned, Mr. Chairman. I know the hon. member for Middlesex West is not so much concerned, because he belongs to that class of farmer who can lose $50,000 or $100,000 and never bat an eye; but there are many other farmers who are concerned. Many of these people have struggled, their wives have struggled and have milked cows down through the years. I must admit that I have not milked many cows. I can milk them but I do not like it. I always deal with Shorthorn cows because I always boost the breed that I am responsible for-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: I would rather be responsible for the care of a good herd of Shorthorns than be as irresponsible as some hon. members are with respect to this important matter. I am not going to joke about this. My genial friend to my right, the hon. member for Portneuf, probably would not know a Shorthorn from a Polled Angus. I am not trying to make a joke, Mr. Chairman, and while I am on my feet I am not going to allow any other hon. member to make a joke out of what is going to break financially hundreds of farmers throughout this dominion. Scores of them are in my own riding, and scores of them are in other ridings. Do you realize what is happening in the dairy and the purebred livestock business in this country? I know farmers, I know them well, who have already lost $50,000 from this tragic disaster. There are scores of them who are at least 1,000 miles, yes, 2,000 miles from where the infected areas are.
It is not a matter of the value of the infected animal. True, I said facetiously to someone behind me I hope that a friend of the Minister of Agriculture who talks to him by telephone, and who he assures us is going to be satisfied when he is through, will be satisfied. If the cattle on my farm are infected and I cannot get close to the
Foot-and-mouth disease Minister of Agriculture I hope I can get Mr. Beatty to intercede for me. I hope that he gets a square deal. The Minister of Agriculture says he does not know how he will vote. I know the minister is not concerned with how he will vote at the present time because in the face of this tragedy there will be no election this year, Mr. Chairman.
It is not the loss of the value of the animals that are affected. In his usually sound and analytical style the hon. member for Lake Centre this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend laughs, but I have never known him to be as analytical as the hon. member for Lake Centre is even in his casual style. This afternoon he emphasized what is really going to happen. At the same time, I am not so much concerned as to whether you say that you will give the farmer who has lost a grade animal $40 and the salvage price, or $100 to the purebred producer. As the Minister of Agriculture well said today, that was inaugurated in other days. He knows and we all know, and I think it is only fair to say that he was eminently fair when he suggested that it is more or less outmoded. At the same time, I would be very fearful if we left it wide open. I have some interest in the livestock industry. I know a farmer who was paid at least $5,000 apiece for four animals in that infected area. I have several animals for which I paid a lot more than I could ever get today.
After recalling what has happened in western Canada in the last number of years and with all the confidence that I have in the Minister of Agriculture, I would not like to leave a wide-open gate so that he could pay whatever he liked, because I doubt whether his judgment on livestock, in view of his experience, is as good as his political judgment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will have to show my Shorthorns against yours.


William Earl Rowe: Well, I have observed that neither of us was brave enough to show them against anybody else's. I will say this. If neither of them is as good as it should be it is probably because he and I have been away from home too much. I am not boasting about my Shorthorns. Every week end when I go home I can see where they might be better. This is the first time that I have heard the minister even venture to boast about his. If we were to make a trade "even Stephen" tonight neither of the herds would be worth as much as it was worth last year, because this disease has hit the industry such a blow that it will take it years to overcome it. I believe the price of commercial beef should be up. I
62	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Foot-and-mouth disease
mean the figure of $40, and the figure of $100. As the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, I believe a reasonable economic value should be paid. I do not believe that a farmer who is game enough to pay $30,000 or $40,000 for a Shorthorn heifer, >an Aberdeen Angus or a Holstein bull should expect to get $40,000 because after all it is a matter of judgment. I have some experience in this, and often it is a matter of contest between the man who wants the bull and the auctioneer. I do not believe that we should expect the treasury department-I look at the Minister of Finance now because I know his zeal for hanging on to all the surplus he has-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I do not think that he should pay out fantastic figures. He should not be influenced particularly by whose ox is gored. If a wide-open end were left, especially in a year just before an election, and despite the confidence I have in the government, I fear they might veer a little bit towards some of their particular friends who have lost a very valuable herd. But, Mr. Chairman, it goes far beyond that. We find that we have a situation here in Canada-and I say this in all sincerity, Mr. Chairman-that is one of the most vital that will be before this house this session.
I know the Minister of Agriculture will tell you about his visit to western Canada and about how nobody mentioned this problem to him. I have often been to places where nobody mentioned the cattle business, the horse business, the 'agricultural business or several other things that I might be interested in personally, especially if I were talking politics to them.
I know the Minister of Agriculture was in western Canada in very critical days. I refer to the days following the death of our late monarch, I doubt whether the minister would be talking very much about other problems at that time. But, Mr. Chairman, the facts stand pleading before us for consideration. There is the fact that on November 26 last there was in western Canada an outbreak of what veterinarians called vesicular stomatitis. It is true that most of the local people, including the local veterinarians, thought the symptoms were indicative of only a temporary disease that would not affect the herds particularly, and that would not affect the carloads that were being shipped to Ontario-to my section of the province, and to that section represented by the members from Middlesex, and those sections represented by other hon. members. It was considered non-contagious, or at least a disease which was not serious.

Since I was the size of one of these page boys I can remember on my father's farm that if we had a lame cow, or a cow that was slobbering, or a cow that was coughing up her cud, or a cow that was not doing well -if, in short, we had a cow that was losing weight, one of the dreaded things we asked ourselves was this: Could it be possible that she had the foot-and-mouth disease?
There is not an hon. member, whether he be in the legal profession, the medical or any other profession-not one of them who has lived on a farm-who cannot recall this. I can recall it as vividly as if it were last night. When I was a boy, just beginning to go to school, and I asked my father about the foot-and-mouth disease he told me that it was one of the most dreaded things that could ever hit the livestock industry.
The veterinarians would look into those cases and say, "No, I do not think it is that. It is something else." But, Mr. Speaker, we have advanced a long way from those days. Today we have a laboratory in Hull; we have a laboratory at Saskatoon; we have laboratories in different places across Canada. We do not take second place to any country in our technical knowledge and in our cultural advancement. We take second place to none so far as the science of medicine, and the practice carried on by veterinarians, are concerned.
There is no one who would argue more vigorously in support of what I have said in this connection than would the Minister of Agriculture. And yet we have this situation that developed three long months ago, this situation where the cows are slobbering, where they have blisters on their tongues-* in short, where they have all the symptoms that are known to be those of the foot-and-mouth disease.
I am not going to criticize any of those scientists. I am not going to say that the Minister of Agriculture, who is so busy in connection with many other important things, is responsible. But, Mr. Chairman, somebody in Canada, whether it is in the bureaucratic set-up of this dominion or not, is responsible for that dreaded disease which was developing for three months prior to its diagnosis. They cannot escape at least some form of responsibility for a condition where, overnight, our exports to the United States valued at about $125 million are cut off. Then there is another $200 million taken off the people connected with the great and basic livestock industry of this country. They are now told that they cannot ship their cattle into another province. We are told, so far as the United States is concerned, that we cannot ship to that country. All this has

caused consternation among all the livestock breeders of Canada. I refer not only to the breeders of cattle for slaughtering, but to those who raise dairy cattle, swine, sheep and horses.
Why, even the Americans who have been in this country racing their horses this past winter cannot take those horses back to the United States. Some of us who have entered horses in United States races find we cannot take them to participate in those races.
Then we see what is being done by Quebec -and I do not blame that province for what it is doing. At least the premier of Quebec is not afraid to do what he thinks is right, when he sees an issue at stake. He does not want the game in that province contaminated. He does not want the dairy herds of Quebec contaminated. And, naturally, as a precautionary measure, he says, "I am going to prohibit the importation of beef from Ontario." That is not aimed particularly at Ontario. True, it does not help those of us in Ontario who are in the beef cattle business. However, that is the prerogative of the premier of Quebec. That is in line with his views concerning the provincial autonomy that he is zealous to protect.
Then the hon. member for Fraser Valley has said that they have a perfect right in that province to protect themselves-and so they have. They have a right to protect the Fraser valley, and those other districts in British Columbia that are prosperous through agriculture. As the hon. member has said, they have the right to protect the game of the province, because he knows what the consequences would be if that action were not taken.
I can well remember being in the house on other occasions when the United States market has been closed to the great beef cattle industry of Canada. But, Mr. Chairman, what a change a few years make! I can remember the time the Fordney-McCumber tariff was put into effect. That was in 1922, I believe, when we lost half our market in the United States. Those were the days when the ranchers in western Canada were almost panicky, as were the cattle producers in Ontario.
Then, I can remember when the government was asked to do something to stop the importation of canned beef from the United States, and we were told, "Oh no, we must not do that; they are a friendly country, and it might lead to international complications." I remember, too, the famous Hawley-Smoot tariff which, overnight, cut us off from the United States market.


An hon. Member:: And do not forget 1911.
Foot-and-mouth disease


William Earl Rowe: You should forget it, because you got your answer at that time. I remember that as well as you do. But I am not going to be sidetracked by little interruptions like that, or by any references to reciprocity. What I am interested in is the attitude of this government. I am interested, not only as a livestock breeder, but because of my interest in other matters. From this point on, perhaps my interests as a livestock breeder would not be of such great concern. But I am interested in those boys and girls in this province who are still livestock breeders and who tonight are discouraged, depressed and almost in despair. I am interested in looking towards the future, and to what will happen.
I have been amazed by what I have seen at times. I have sat in the house many years, and sometimes I wonder why I come here as often as I do.


An hon. Member:: We all wonder.


William Earl Rowe: Well, my hon. friends may laugh.


An hon. Member:: Very seldom.


William Earl Rowe: Even if it is very seldom, I think I am a lot more useful than you are when you are here. I say this, in all kindness to the government. Surely while parliament is in session, and if this is going to continue as our democratic system of government, it is not necessary three hours in advance of the sitting of the house for a minister to say that he would rather talk on the radio than talk in parliament. And I say that in all kindliness to the Minister of Agriculture. One must admire his political technique. If I had had it, perhaps I would be farther along in public life than I am. But there is no one more nimble or more vociferous than the right hon. gentleman. That is why I know he must think he has a weak case when his voice is so mellowed as we heard it this afternoon. But on the radio this morning he says to the livestock breeders of Canada: I am going to ban United States beef coming into Canada. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I remember the occasion in 1929 when we asked the then minister of agriculture to institute a tariff against canned beef. Seventeen million dollars worth had come into the country. I remember the late Right Hon. Mr. King saying "oh, no". He was just as smooth as the present Minister of Agriculture, in fact a little smoother. They were a pair of scholars and one tried to mimic the other. Now that he is no longer here the Minister of Agriculture is making up for the two of them. At that time the answer was:	Oh,
no, we dare not raise the tariff.


John George Diefenbaker: Provoke the United
States.


William Earl Rowe: As the hon. member for Lake Centre suggests-we must not provoke the United States of America. I can remember the then minister of finance, Mr. Dunning, saying: No, no, we must not provoke, we must not retaliate. We can put in countervailing duties later on but we must not retaliate. But this new champion of the agricultural industry of Canada right off the bat says that we will retaliate, that at a time when we wonder how long this epidemic is going to last we will tell them that they cannot send any more beef into Canada, no more beef in cans, on the hoof, under the hide or out of the hide. Nothing more can come in now. What a difference a few years makes! We must not retaliate, we must not provoke the United States of America in 1929, but in a matter of twenty-four hours we have provoked them now. Why? I ask the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. It will not make five dollars difference to the 500 head of fat steers he is feeding now because he knows, as does every other hon. member who is a cattleman, that even if you do not put a ban against United States beef no beef cattle will come into Peel, Middlesex or Dufferin-Simcoe from the United States of America. Why is that so? Because as a result of the negligence of the department to some extent and the disaster that has occurred beef has dropped 12 cents a pound. Do you think the United States people are going to rush their cattle over here to sell them in a market where the farmers of Ontario cannot sell? Why? There is no market there now. We are only trying to feed them. We can give them lots of cattle. The hon. member for Middlesex West could flood the market in one week if he wanted to. I appreciate his loyalty in keeping his cattle off the market for the benefit of other cattlemen who are not as close to the problem as he is. But why was this done?


Mr. Sinnoll:: Come on, get up on your hind legs and answer him.


William Earl Rowe: I know you have nothing to add to this. If you add anything to it in your style it will detract from it. Every hon. member within the sound of my voice knows why it was done. The kindliness of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, who is always very kind, prevented him from telling you why. He knows that his own province of British Columbia only produces 10 per cent of their beef requirements. He quite properly said today: Why should we be forced to accept beef until we know that our wildlife and our dairy cattle of the Fraser valley are secure? Why should 

members from the province of Quebec accept them? It is true it might temporarily help the beef producers of the province of Ontario to be able to send beef to the province of Quebec, but right at the present time, when there is a little suspicion concerning two or three districts in the province of Ontario, I do not blame the province of Quebec for saying that they are going to wait until they are sure that they can import healthy animals from the other provinces. They at least have the sovereign right to prevent it and they are going to prevent it.
But without coming to parliament, without asking those of us who represent the people, three hours in advance of the meeting of the house today the Minister of Agriculture says that he will ban the importation of beef. He may think that the Ontario beef producers and farmers on the back concession lines will think he is working with them but the people of British Columbia and Quebec will know so well that the only purpose it could serve would be to starve them into submission and make them accept beef whether or not they thought it was dangerous. It does nothing so far as helping the beef producers of Canada is concerned.
The market is shot anyway but for a few weeks the province of Quebec can certainly get its beefsteaks and other beef, which they can well afford to buy. They can get beef for their lumber camps, beef for their fancy hotels in Quebec City and Montreal in the same way as other provinces that have plenty of beef. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley knows, British Columbia can get its beef from the United States at least for a few months until this thing settles down. But now, on twenty-four hours' notice and outside of parliament, the Minister of Agriculture announces that we will stop beef coming into Canada knowing that beef will not come into Ontario anyway but preventing it from coming into Quebec and British Columbia so as to starve the people there into submission. If you do not let United States meat in you will eat Newfoundland flippers or something else instead of roast beef.


An hon. Member:: A fate worse than death.


William Earl Rowe: The Dominion of Canada has rapidly been growing into a great storehouse of purebred livestock. In the last few years we have produced more high-class livestock and increased our production to a greater extent than any other country in the world. France, Belgium, the Argentine, with the drought she has suffered in the last while, and other countries in South America are

very glad to import. During the last five years I am satisfied that from my riding at least $75,000 worth of dairy cattle have gone to South America alone, to say nothing of the great volume that goes across the border every week into the United States. Now we know that overnight that market is prohibited. We know that overnight the value of the purebred herds in the province of Ontario is almost cut in half.
How long is it going to take to recover? You will recall that I mentioned the Fordney-McCumber tariff and the Hawley-Smoot tariff. They were put into effect because the United States had too much beef at the time, and they thought they could protect the livestock men of Oklahoma, Texas, and other American states. They never had an excuse like this. I venture to say that, while it is to be in effect for sixty days, it will be difficult to remove, and the removal will not be made easier by the fact that we have made such a clumsy explanation of how the disaster started and how it was handled in Canada. I think that it not only means a death blow to the great basic industry of agriculture, the livestock industry, but it is the greatest discouragement to the livestock producers of Canada in the last half century. The discouragement does not arise particularly because of the fact that we have been contaminated with the dreaded foot-and-mouth disease. I am not so much concerned with that now because after you have a wreck there is not much use in talking about who hit you. You had better get your hospital bills paid and get straightened out. I am not so much concerned about that. As the hon. member for Lake Centre said so well this afternoon, you have chased an immigrant up and down this country from Montreal to Fort William and back to Montreal and finally found him in Vancouver. By now you have probably inspected his clothing, his boots and his hat, and found out where he has been. It may be that he worked on a farm in Holland, Belgium, Poland or Germany that was contaminated with foot-and-mouth disease, which we know is prevalent over there. I think the Minister of Agriculture might ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the immigration officers who are selecting those who come to Canada are experienced men. He might ask him whether his immigration inspectors do anything about it when they find a group of young farmers coming from an area infected with foot-and-mouth disease, particularly when we know that even in Mexico when coming out of the infected 55704-5
Foot-and-mouth disease areas people are required to drive their automobiles through a chemical solution so they will not carry the disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member apparently was not in the house this evening when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration dealt with that matter and announced that they were taking action.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad they have begun to take action, but apparently that has been done just recently. I know the department has called back from Europe some immigration officers who apparently were not serving as efficiently as the department considered they should. I am wondering just how loose this whole machinery may be. All down the line we have had what goes with a government that has a top-heavy majority and a top-heavy civil service, a bureaucracy that is almost tumbling over itself. The government has a Pollyanna complacency that often results in the errors and mistakes that I am trying to point out; and I say that in all kindliness.
I venture to believe that in his heart of hearts the right hon. minister knows there must have been some laxity in his department. Nothing I have heard yet convinces me that there has not been carelessness, complacency, a disregard for facts and even worse in ithe Department of Agriculture, to permit this situation to develop though it had sufficient warning three months ago. It is not good enough for the minister to say he spoke to Tom Jones or Bill Smith or somebody else in Calgary, even though they are personal friends of his and excellent citizens, as they all are out there, and that because they did not mention it to him his responsibility ended.
The minister says a quarantine was set up. If that were so, why were Mr. Waas' children allowed to go to school without missing a day? Why were the people of that district allowed to go in to do their shopping, to tramp through the stores and be followed by men and women from farms in other districts? If a quarantine was set up that meant anything at all why were they permitted to send dozens of carloads of cattle to Ontario and. Quebec, and to St. Paul in the United States? Where is the section you are going to extend by fifty miles and slaughter all the cattle in order to increase the area of your quarantine? You had better go fifty miles out from St. Paul, or fifty miles out from London, Ontario. Do you blame the people of British Columbia or the people of Quebec for being a little dubious when they know that during January and February cattle were shipped to Ontario and Quebec from the very district that was supposed to be under quarantine?
66	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease
What assurance have we as livestock dealers in this country that we are going to be protected in future? I have always understood that no one could bring animals across the border without a careful inspection. For fifty years we have never thought of foot-and-mouth disease being imported into this country from the United States. If our veterinary authorities are not able to diagnose foot-and-mouth disease in less than three months what assurance have we that cattle which have been imported from the United States are not diseased? Were the veterinarians at the border smarter than the veterinarians in western Canada? Were they smarter than Dr. Childs or Dr. Mitchell or the other men who should get their heads together and find out what has been going on?	.
I leave this thought with the Minister of Agriculture, and no one in this house will grasp its significance more quickly. If the United States put a ban on our livestock going to that country because of foot-and-mouth disease, they will not be liable to lift it any sooner if some congressmen can say that we had foot-and-mouth disease in Canada for three months before we knew it. Stop and think over that one. A congressman can say the records shovf that on November 26 we had a disease that looked so much like foot-and-mouth disease that the local veterinaries could not distinguish it. Because of the lackadaisical attitude and the complacency of the Department of Agriculture and the veterinary service of Canada, for whatever reason they did not diagnose it as foot-and-mouth disease, nor did they diagnose it as anything else. I know for a fact farmers in that district asked the veterinaries whether this could possibly be foot-and-mouth disease, so it was talked about. In one respect I must say the minister may have been right. I have read some of the speeches made in western Canada by those who were familiar with this matter, and I know the local veterinaries generally considered that it must be only vesicular stomatitis. But when the farmers generally became inquisitive and asked for an investigation, as a national responsibility, as a national duty, as something vital to the economy of this country concerning this basic industry, surely there should have been an investigation. Surely samples should have been sent to Regina or Saskatoon or Hull to make sure that it was vesicular stomatitis rather than foot-and-mouth disease. To my mind that was a careless evasion of responsibility on the part of someone in this country which will mean a great deal as the years go by.


I do not like to stand idly by and watch this country become a secondary livestock producing country. We have the facilities for growing grain and fodder to feed great herds of livestock. We have markets, and we have developed industry in this country. We have great home markets, and there are great markets opening every year overseas to restock the herds that were depleted during the recent war. To find those markets shut off at a time when our economy is slipping, and to find that it has happened without the Department of Agriculture knowing their business or perhaps being careless in the administration of a responsibility to the economy of this country, is quite a shock.
I do not know that I can add much to this issue except to say that I well recall the surpluses of 1932. I can well recall talking in those years about the importance of the livestock industry. I recall some hon. members from western Canada saying that we would never see wheat below $1.25 per bushel, yet I remember it selling for 40 cents and even lower in some districts. I remember when the Hawley-Smoot tariff closed our cattle from United States markets. This is the third time the United States has closed us out of their market. The great champions who sit to your right, Mr. Chairman, who were to find the United States market and hold it forever, and who thought it was so much more important than the British market, find that this is the third time the United States has closed its market to Canadian cattle.
In 1932 everyone in this house was concerned about where we would find markets. May I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that since the United States has Closed this market and with more reason than they had before, while we have complacently allowed a dangerous disease to spread through our cattle for three months until now it has spread to God knows where, at least he should take definite steps to find a market for the surplus cattle. Instead of worrying too much about what we may receive for the infected animals, we ought to find countries that have had foot-and-mouth disease to whom we could send animals under proper inspection. If we are going to be left in a position that looks dark, I suggest that the government should meet and decide whether or not it would be wise to appropriate substantial funds to get this surplus beef out of Canada, even if it has to be given away. We could make sure that none of the infected carcasses go outside the country.
I will not use the word "cowardly", but I will say that I do not think it is a very game way of dealing with an issue, to ban products

from the United States of America, with all the international complications of retaliation and so on. It is our problem, so do not blame it on the United States. Do not try to starve the people of the province of Quebec or the people of British Columbia. They are entitled to their provincial autonomy. So far as the province of Ontario is concerned, it does not make much difference because no cattle will enter at 12 cents per pound less. Quebec should not be forced to buy Ontario or any other beef until they are ready to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the dinner hour the member for Nanaimo asked me to put some information on Hansard. I have not been able to do so until this moment. I have just been handed the substance of a message which we received from Washington as a result of an inquiry made during the lunch hour concerning furs and fur-bearing animals. The answer is to the effect that the United States embassy advises that, according to a Washington official, furs and fur-bearing animals are not affected by the embargo order. The information we had prior to receiving that message was to the same effect.
There are a few things which I think should be said because of what I am afraid is a wrong impression being built up, not intentionally, but probably because of lack of information which I was unable to give at an earlier time. Perhaps I can give it now in greater detail than I could have given it previously. In the first place, the idea is being built up that somebody discovered foot-and-mouth disease on the farm of Mr. Waas or on the farm of Mr. Smith, who lived in the same area, or on the farm of some three or four others who lived around Mr. Waas. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. No one has ever established yet that there was ever foot-and-mouth disease upon the farm of Mr. Waas.


Mr. Harkness:: Did they not shoot his cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, his cattle have not been shot. Some of them may be tomorrow, but they have not been shot yet. It has not been established that foot-and-mouth disease has been on the farm of Mr. Waas. As a matter of fact, Mr. Waas called in a veterinarian for the first time on November 26 to consult him about a disease which his animals had. As I stated the other night, his veterinarian was sick and was not able to go, but he did prescribe for this disease known as stomatitis. The animals recovered.
At a later date, I think it was demonstrated today that that date was about December 2, Mr. Waas became somewhat concerned about something and he sent into Regina for members of our veterinary staff.
Foot-and-mouth disease I think one of the members went out that day and one on a later day, probably the next day. Altogether Mr. Waas and his neighbours had seven different veterinarians in that district examining their cattle during the latter part of November and the early part of December. Every one of the seven veterinarians said it was not foot-and-mouth disease. It is my understanding that by the 5th of January these men were relieved of any idea that there had been foot-and-mouth disease on their farms.
So far as anyone knows, that would have been the end of the matter had the disease not broken out somewhere else. The disease was discovered, not on anyone's farm, but in the packing plant of the Burns Company at Regina. When it was discovered there-


John George Diefenbaker: Who established it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume a veterinary inspector in the plant.


John George Diefenbaker: One of your inspectors?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not say that, but it was discovered by someone in the plant who was competent to deal with the matter. It was found in a very short time, as suggested by the member for Lake Centre this afternoon, that there was an outbreak of the disease along Wascana creek. I think he understands, as I do, that Wascana creek does take some of the sewage from the plants around Regina. We have always been afraid that something or other might break out along that stream as a result of that fact. On this occasion the disease did break out in certain places.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister give us the date of that outbreak?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give you the dates of everything in a minute, but let me give it in my own order.


An hon. Member:: Make sure he does not forget it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The disease did break out in the Regina plant of Burns, in so far as we are certain, and might not have broken out on the farm of Mr. Waas at all. The only reason for thinking that it has any association with Mr. Waas is that, seven days before any of his animals were infected with any disease, he delivered livestock to the Burns plant in Regina. It was only after discovery was made of some traces of the disease as leading back to the plant at Regina that thought was given to Mr. Waas and his neighbours. These particular cattle of his were traced back to his farm, of course, and it was found that he had this other disease there. Investigations have been carried on
68	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease there since; but his cattle have not yet been destroyed. That situation has some bearing on the fact that this immigrant has been followed here and there up and down the country. It leaves a different interpretation on the question as to what you would find if you found traces of a virus being carried by this particular individual on his clothes, on his boots or in some other way. It would prove one thing, in all probability, namely, that there is a possibility that animals were afflicted with that disease on the farm of Mr. Waas. It would not necessarily prove that he brought the disease from Germany to this country but it might prove that he himself contacted animals on that place while he was there; and he was there, I think, about a week or a week and a half before these animals were delivered to the Burns plant. That circumstance might suggest that he had been in contact on that farm, in one way or another, with animals that developed the foot-and-mouth disease. Hence, for every reason, the department should follow this matter through to the bitter end and find out if there is any reason for believing that this immigrant was in any way associated with the disease, either on the farm of Mr. Waas or in Germany before he came here, or that he was a carrier of the disease.
I think that leaves a different picture with regard to the situation as related to Mr. Waas. If nothing else had happened except what happened on the Waas farm and in his neighbourhood, I am quite satisfied that we would not be having this discussion tonight at all; because that particular livestock had been treated, and to all intents and purposes had been cured. Moreover, I understand that there has not been any further outbreak on that particular farm. That situation, of course, could change from day to day. Because of the fear that there might have been some association there, the government is going so far as to destroy those herds; but before we destroy them, we should like to determine whether or not we have got to the source of the disease. We are not at all certain that we have done so. Seven different veterinarians said it was not foot-and-mouth disease. Some of them were our representatives. Some of them were veterinarians practising in the community. I am not sure whether any of them were provincial men. In any event there were seven different veterinarians who were called there and who gave the opinion that it was not foot-and-mouth disease.
I am quite prepared to say that I was pleased indeed to listen to the remarks made by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth


this afternoon. I think he did all members a great service as he certainly did me. He gave me, with regard to the disease, information which I did not have and I thank him for it. But at the same time I am quite prepared to take the opinion of seven veterinarians out in the Regina district, who visited the area and saw the livestock, in preference to the opinion of a veterinarian sitting in this house as to whether or not those animals had foot-and-mouth disease.


Gordon Graydon: But you are now shooting the cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will shoot all cattle in that area about which we have any suspicions whatever. That is a situation which does not justify the kind of discussion we have been listening to for some little time. I am afraid it is misrepresenting the position of some good farmers close to the centre of the area.
There are one or two other matters which have been raised. There is the question of the United States boundary line and the closing of it. Our order in council does not just close the United States boundary line.


Percy Ellis Wright: Before the minister continues, will he give us the date of the discovery made in the Burns plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think all that information has been put on the record now.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: I put it on the record this afternoon.


John Alpheus Charlton: You said you would give it to me.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend sends it over to me, I will give it. I sent my copy over to him. The answer to the question which my hon. friend asked, and which I sent over to him this afternoon, gives the dates on which Dr. Childs went out and visited the Burns plant.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am sorry, but that was not one of the questions I asked the minister this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question the hon. member asked me was when our veterinarian went out there, and the answer I gave him was that he went out and visited the Burns plant on a certain date.


An hon. Member:: February 17.


James Garfield Gardiner: And then that he went back again a month later.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that not in December? Mr. Gardiner: No. In the answer to those questions, one of the dates is, I think, January

15 and the other, I think, is February 15. I
am speaking from memory, however. My hon. friend has the answer.


George Harris Hees: Will the minister permit a question-


Percy Ellis Wright: What the minister has now stated is that they do not know where the infection came from which infected the Burns plant.


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly.


Percy Ellis Wright: It may have come from a different area altogether.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have a suspicion that it may have come from the Waas herd. We have another suspicion that it may have come from some other herd, in any one of the twenty-three places where the disease was finally found.


Major James William Coldwell: Some young cattle were sold from the Burns plant to farmers. Where did those cattle originate and did the disease appear where those cattle were delivered?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should not like to go into that detail here, but we will get it when the matter is before the standing committee.


Major James William Coldwell: I thought the minister mentioned young cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I did not say anything about young cattle. I simply said that, by some means or other, there had entered the Burns plant at least one animal, if not more, that had the disease. The information we have is to the effect that the disease had gone out from that plant. The means by which it went out I have not stated, because I have not information on all the points. I am agreeing with what the hon. member for Lake Centre said this afternoon, namely, that this disease broke out down along the Wascana creek. My hon. friend knows, as I do, that the drainage from the city of Regina goes down that creek; and we have had concern about the matter over a number of years. In the provincial house we had discussions years ago about the possibility of outbreaks as a result of that situation, and the city of Regina has always been concerned about it. There is not any question about it; it could have come from the plant, down the drain, and affected these cattle down the creek.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will the minister explain why on the first visit of the government veterinarian the test was not taken?
Foot-and-mouth disease


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the government veterinarians went out, and I do not know-this afternoon my hon. friend said what they should have done. Maybe they did it. I do not know whether they did or not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Don't all get excited at once, because-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The test was not taken until last week or the week before.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are talking about a different thing. My hon. friend for Brant-Wentworth says it is not necessary to have that test at all in order to determine whether you have got foot-and-mouth disease. He says that he as-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You never took a test.


James Garfield Gardiner: -that he as a veterinarian, or any other veterinarian, could have done so by injecting the virus into different animals, pigs, sheep and oattle and so on. He said it could be done without getting this serum from Great Britain.


John Alpheus Charlton: I said the diagnosis could be made without the serum, and I still say so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and seven different veterinarians-


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister is just running around in circles. He suggests now that this infection, diagnosed on the 17th of January, was responsible for an outbreak first visited on December 2, 1951.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am only suggesting now that seven different veterinarians out in that district who, with all due respect to my hon. friend, are I think just as good veterinarians as he is-they are seven men who have a good reputation and they have gained that reputation in the area from which some of my hon. friends on the other side come. These men did check the disease in the area, and they found at that time that it was not foot-and-mouth disease.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The director general was there himself. Why did he not take the test?


James Garfield Gardiner: The director general went
out in January and he did some scouting around too.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: He just took a look at it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I do not know that that is all he would do. I think my hon. friends know that Dr. Childs, while he was in Ontario, did a pretty good job. It was because of the good job he did there that he is where he is today, and I am quite prepared to agree, until I know otherwise, that he is still doing a good job. If it is proven before the agriculture committee or elsewhere that he is

Foot-and-mouth disease not, that will be soon enough for me to start to criticize him. I think that he and any others who knew about the matter at the time-and I did not-were quite justified in considering the opinion of seven different veterinarians as being fairly conclusive evidence that the disease was not there at all.
I am now coming back to the point that I was going to deal with a moment ago, namely, the United States position. There is one representative of the United States staffs that have been fighting this disease for years-I take it that my hon. friend who was speaking a few moments ago was in the United States at the time when he was a boy when they were worrying about foot-and-mouth disease. That is where most of the foot-and-mouth disease that we have bad on this continent has been.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I must correct the minister. I did not bring it into Canada. When I came over here I was two years old.


James Garfield Gardiner: You can probably remember what your father's experiences were in the United States from what he told you after he came back.


William Earl Rowe: I have some memory of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: They had foot-and-mouth disease in the United States in 23 different states. My hon. friends know that right up until just a few years ago, as a matter of fact, to about the time that I came into this department, we were denied the right to ship any stock to Britain for any other purpose than for slaughter because there had been foot-and-mouth disease in the United States, not because there was foot-and-mouth disease in this country. In other words, if you shipped a carload of steers and heifers over to Glasgow they had to be slaughtered within a certain period of time and sold as beef. You could not leave the heifers there as breeding stock. The same thing applied if they went to Manchester or London. They were denied the opportunity of going into that country for a period of well over thirty years, I think. We were denied the right to go to Britain because they had foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. That was largely owing to the fact that they did not feel that we could prevent it from coming across the boundary line, judging by their experiences, as has been said. It was not a Liberal government that was in power over many of these years. Over many of these years a Conservative government was in power. But over all the years, those who were labouring in the departments of agriculture, either provincial or federal, under
[Mr. Gardiner.!

these governments did succeed in keeping foot-and-mouth disease out of this country. But that did not stop the British from saying that because it was on this continent they would not take our breeding stock.
That brings us down to just a few years ago. Now, with regard to our United States friends and their position with relation to the whole matter: They took 404,000 head of cattle, either in butchered form or live weight, last year. Why are they going to be worrying about the export market into Canada for cattle and beef? They are going to be worrying about the fact that they are to be short 404,000 head of cattle in the United States this year because we have foot-and-mouth disease.


William Earl Rowe: Why ban them then?


James Garfield Gardiner: In other words, they are going to be in a position where it will be very difficult for them to supply their own people, particularly in view of the fact that they already have foot-and-mouth disease in Mexico. I might say to my hon. friends, who are searching around for a place to find where it came from, that the disease is in Mexico. How it got from one place to the other I do not know, but it seems to me more logical to be looking for it to have come from Mexico than to have come in: with an immigrant, when the place where the disease broke out is the farthest away point you could possibly get from any ocean port of entry into this country.


William Earl Rowe: And just about as far from Mexico, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is not as far from Mexico. As a matter of fact you are closer to Mexico in the southwestern corner of Ontario than you are to Saskatchewan, and birds or something else might bring the disease there just as easily as it could come from Saskatchewan.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not at this time of the year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Maybe not at this time of the-year. There is not very much logic about all the argument today to the effect that something just happened. It got to Saskatchewan by some means. No one knows by what means, but we are still searching for the means. Then our friends from one place or the other, let us say from British Columbia, are afraid of the fact that there is foot-and-mouth disease in the area around Regina. If I remember correctly, as I used to drive it, from Regina to Calgary it is some 650 miles, and it is a lot of miles from Calgary to Vancouver, but it is only 48 miles from the quarantined district down to Montana. What I should like to ask is, why should anybody

be more afraid of taking beef cattle out of Alberta, which is 500 or 600 miles away from the area-if you go to the furthest end of Alberta it is 1,000 miles away-into British Columbia than they would be about taking them from Montana into British Columbia? It does not seem to me to be logical, that is all, when we come to discuss that particular question.
Now, what we have done is not to say that a person cannot bring in any meat or livestock from the United States. We have said that anyone who wishes to bring it in from anywhere-not only the United States, but from anywhere-must get a permit in order to do so. That must be done whether it comes from the United States, Australia, some European country or elsewhere. They must get a permit in order to bring it in.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but is it not true that at a press conference this morning he said to that press conference that he had no intention of granting permits?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not for the present; but I did not say how long "the present" lasted- whether it was three days or three months. At the present time we are not issuing permits until we find out more about this thing.


William Earl Rowe: Why does the minister say that British Columbia should not be a bit more afraid of taking cattle from Alberta than from Montana when, in fact, Calgary is one of the main cattle points in Alberta, and when he has just said that that is the place from which the disease emanated?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it was at the Burns plant at Regina, not the Burns plant at Calgary. The largest plant in Regina is the Burns plant, and then there is another smaller one. Those two plants are closed at the present time. It was in the Burns plant at Regina that the disease was discovered.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Will the minister permit a question in connection with the issuing of permits? I should like to ask him about Newfoundland, which imports so much salt beef and salt pork from the United States. Is it now intended to prevent the importation of these commodities from the United States? I believe that is protected under the terms of union.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is probably the reason the matter is put In the form in which it is. There may be cases where permits have to be issued. I do not know whether that is one, or not. But in all cases where any difficulty does arise they will be examined and dealt with accordingly.
Foot-and-mouth disease
My hon. friend has said, and quite properly, that the meat-producing section of the agricultural industry is one of the greatest sections in that industry. We depend upon it for our existence more than we do upon anything else. I think everyone will agree that it is important that the people have a market somewhere for their product, and the only place they can have a market, for the time being, is in the Dominion of Canada.
This government is concerned with seeing to it that the people in all parts of Canada are given as much protection as they possibly can have against having the disease transferred to their areas from the area in which it is now located. That is what we are concerned about. And I can only repeat what I said over the radio this morning- and, by the way, I make no apology for having said it over the radio. In the first place, the house did not meet this morning and, in the second place, the markets to which we were talking opened at about nine o'clock. It must be remembered that eleven o'clock here is nine o'clock in western Canada. It did mean something to the farmers in those areas to know at nine o'clock this morning what the position was, rather than have to wait until this afternoon to find it out. And I am sure they would be a long time finding it out, if they had to wait for the kind of discussion we have had tonight.
With that in mind we took the course that I indicated on Friday we probably would take when it became necessary to do anything in connection with this matter. I pointed out that we would do it in the quickest possible way, and get it into operation just as soon as possible. That was done.
Let me repeat that our main objective in doing what we did was to see to it that the farmers did have one market; and we are hopeful that the other things announced this morning will result in that market being able to handle the beef, pork, mutton and lamb which does go to the market in Canada. That is our main objective. We think what we have announced will accomplish this. And I am quite satisfied that what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Melfort- and may I say I was somewhat surprised someone did not say it before he did, in view of the sources from which much of the criticism has been coming-is worthy of careful consideration. He said he is quite satisfied that if we do not deal with these men fairly we will have to stand criticism. I am quite satisfied, too, that that is so. If we do not

Foot-and-mouth disease deal fairly with the farmers, those who are having their animals slaughtered, we will have to take criticism.
This makes it important, first, that we see to it that they are treated fairly and, secondly, that we do not allow this to lead us into spending too much of the taxpayers' money in taking care of the situation. We ought to spend what is absolutely essential in order to treat these people fairly, but on the other hand we should not spend any more than is absolutely necessary to treat them fairly. And so we have set up an organization which we think will take care of both of those objectives, namely, that of treating them fairly while, at the same time, seeing to it that we do not waste the money of the people of Canada in doing so.


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask the minister a question? I was under the impression that he was going to tell us about some authority who had come over from the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am glad the hon. member mentioned that. I had so many questions from all sides that, at times, I get off on some other tack. One of these men who came over from the United States to help us made a speech in Winnipeg or Regina, I am not sure which it was, on either Friday or Saturday night. In that speech he called attention to a few facts. One statement he made was that the disease had been in 23 states in the United States, and he congratulated the people of Canada, the government of this country and all those concerned with the disease upon the fact that; we had caught it before it had got beyond a district no larger than fifty miles square.
He emphasized the fact that if we could hold it there and stamp it out from that small area we would be conferring a service not only upon this country but upon the whole continent. I am satisfied that that is so. And so we have set up an organization which will do exactly that about which some people a few moments ago were smiling.
Whether we can prove absolutely that cases which had been diagnosed as stomatitis were, in fact, foot-and-mouth disease, we intend to destroy the animals that had that other disease, or that were diagnosed as having had it. And we believe we are doing a service not only to the men concerned but to all Canada in seeing to it that no chance whatsoever is taken in connection with a matter of that kind, and that the animals are destroyed.
I think I should say we also have a duty toward those individuals. That duty does not end with the destruction of their livestock. If their buildings are polluted with

the disease, they will be destroyed, too. We have got to be fairly sure when we begin destroying livestock that they have the disease. If it is absolutely established that they have it, then we will have a lot more expense than merely the expense of paying for the animals slaughtered.
I do not think anyone will suggest that we should be in too big a hurry to destroy animals within an area, so long as it is tightly quarantined. When no one has diagnosed the disease that was on a farm as being the foot-and-mouth disease, we should not be in too big a hurry if we can find any way of establishing that the disease was never there. Because these men all have equipment which they are very anxious should not be destroyed. They know it cannot be replaced by the expenditure of equal sums of money, or sums equal to those for which the equipment was purchased.
We have to be careful about it-and we are being careful. I would say once again I do not think we are helping the situation by suggesting that someone was lacking in his enthusiasm to take care of the disease in its early stages. Everyone was following it as closely as they could and no one diagnosed the case as foot-and-mouth disease until the month of February. Therefore while there might be criticism for our officials not having acted maybe two weeks earlier than they did-and I say "officials" because the government had no reason for believing there was foot-and-mouth disease there-on the other hand when persons are saying six weeks or three months earlier that is an entirely different thing. I do not think any evidence has been established anywhere that anyone was lacking in judgment or administrative ability between the 26th day of November and at least the latter part of the month of January. There might be some criticisms about what happened after that. However, we can hear those as we go along, and probably anything we have to say with regard to them will also be removed when we hear the evidence before the committee.
My friend immediately across from me said a little while ago that the price of cattle had gone down 12 cents. I don't know. It depends upon what area you are talking about. Cattle prices have gone down considerably in some places and not so much in others. If the situation is allowed to remain as it is at present I am afraid there are just as many areas in Canada where the price will go up as there are where it will go down. Where it goes up it will go up to abnormal heights and where it goes down it will go down to unreasonable levels unless someone does something about it. But I do want to

suggest and I do not think the government or all the taxpayers of Canada should assume the full responsibility for what may be done by very limited sections of Canada.
The suggestion has been made that great good may be done to some areas by eliminating livestock from those areas, but the fact is that some of the areas that have been mentioned do not get livestock in any considerable numbers. Much of the beef that has been talked about tonight is actually killed in Winnipeg now to be sent to some parts of eastern Canada. The amount which goes as livestock and is killed in some of our larger city areas is not nearly so great as has been suggested. Much of that meat is killed in western Canada. I want to emphasize what I said this afternoon, namely, that there is sufficient packing house capacity on the prairies to kill all the livestock that come to market there. There is sufficient packing house capacity there to kill not only all that comes now but there was sufficient to kill the runs that were going during wartime. At that time we had them all in operation to 100 per cent of their capacity. They have never been in operation to 100 per cent of their capacity since, and if the remainder of Canada says that all the livestock produced in western Canada must be killed there they are not doing any harm to western Canada. Western Canada is not going to kick about that. It will give employment to far more men than are employed now in western Canada.
My friends from the Regina area and my friend from Winnipeg have been a little concerned about paying the men who are out of jobs for the moment in the city of Regina. There is far more likelihood of their having jobs and having increased time if we go on as we are now than there is of their being without jobs.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Were these plants in Regina not closed?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are closed at the
moment, but there will be good reasons for opening them if we go on as we are at the present moment, and they probably will be opened.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: These men are without work now.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just saying that they will probably be among the busiest workmen in Canada before very long.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: When?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will get that as we go along. You do not settle these things overnight. What I am suggesting is that there are some other parts of Canada where there may be
Foot-and-mouth disease unemployment in some plants because they have not the livestock to kill. If there is, that is not a problem which we created. It is a problem which someone else created. I want to emphasize once more that livestock in western Canada is just, as secure from foot-and-mouth disease as any livestock you can find anywhere in the world. Since it is in that position there is no reason why it should not be transferred elsewhere and slaughtered, thus keeping the plants busy that have been slaughtering livestock in the years gone by. We are not going to do anything which is going to prevent that happening, but we are going to see to it that all livestock that comes to market whether east or west, whether on the prairies or somewhere else, is killed and put into shape where it can be marketed in some market somewhere. If we find we have meat which ought to go somewhere we can then consider the methods under which we may send it to Britain or elsewhere, but for the time being we are concerned about maintaining this market for our own livestock since it is the only one we know we have got. Then we are concerned next about going out and finding every market we can for our meat in any form, and we are probably in just as good a bargaining position with our boundary closed as we would be if it were in any other condition.
We hope to be able to deal with the matter on that basis and proceed to solve the problems associated with it. We do not anticipate any trouble with our United States friends. We think they are satisfied with the battle we are putting up. They think we are going to be successful. They think we are going to be able to show that this disease can be stamped out in that small area, and we are going to try to prove to them that that is the case and stamp it out. If we do I hope all parts of Canada will co-operate with us ini seeing to it that in the meantime our meat products are consumed on the Canadian market to the greatest extent possible. I think that necessitates our stopping the scaring of people with respect to this matter. A loti of people have the feeling that if one of these animals that have come within a thousand miles of the city of Regina lands in some other part of the world everybody in the community is going to have their livestock affected with foot-and-mouth disease.
As a matter of fact I have had telephone calls from Calgary within the last twenty-four hours suggesting that I appeal to the housewife and tell her that there is not a chance in the world of this meat affecting human beings. It is suggested that I do that because they are stopping their buying and are not taking the meat into their homes. I think we

Foot-and-mouth disease should stop the scaring of people all over the country in that way and get down to dealing with the matter in a common sense way. I think the common sense way at the moment is to pass the bill and put us in a position to go out and make payments. If my hon. friends are not satisfied let me say that they will know all about it by next Friday. We will be paying the bills throughout this week. I think we will still be debating the speech from the throne next Friday, and there is no reason in the world why any hon. member should not bring forward any grievances that anyone has as to the payments that are made with respect to their livestock. There is no reason why he should not bring them up on the floor of the house and discuss them, but I venture to say that there will not be very many put forward, that the people will be satisfied with the treatment they receive from the government, and that they will feel it is fair. What we are suggesting is that this legislation provides for fair and reasonable payment, and I am quite satisfied that nine out of ten of the people who are interested and concerned are also satisfied that this thing ought to be given a trial and that they will get fair treatment when it is given on that trial.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is my first opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to say anything on this matter. I assure you I will not emulate the minister's marathon and somewhat circuitous remarks.


James Garfield Gardiner: I only spoke for twenty minutes. If you equal that you will be all right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the minister has said, we have been fortunate in that so far this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has been confined to a relatively small area in Saskatchewan. I also agree with the minister that any alarm that may be felt by housewives and others in regard to the meat they take home should be allayed as quickly as possible, and that the minister and all the rest of us should do whatever is within our power to put the minds of the people at rest in regard to any danger from that source.
There may be some reason to believe that the disease has been contained within a comparatively small area in Saskatchewan; but that may be due to the weather. This outbreak occurred during the winter, when things of that kind do not spread nearly as rapidly as in warmer weather when flies and birds are about. So I do not think for one moment we should consider the problem with any feeling of complacency, in the belief that it has been contained within a small area and everything is fine. When the weather gets

warmer it may well spread very quickly, and certainly every precaution should be taken to see that this does not happen.
While up to the present the disease has not spread very far, the economic repercussions as far as the livestock industry is concerned have been extremely serious. I am afraid they will be even more serious, and may disastrously affect the entire economic life of the country. I do not like to be repetitious, and I am not going to be; but I cannot understand the delay of nearly three months in making a laboratory test in connection with the outbreak of this disease. The more the minister talked a few minutes ago, the more he went around and around in connection with the Waas farm and what was done and what was not done, the more confused the situation became. I would like to ask him whether in actual fact, as I understand from what he has said, even yet no laboratory test has been made to determine whether the Waas cattle had foot-and-mouth disease. It seems entirely inconceivable that this should be the situation, but the minister says the cattle have not been shot yet and we do not know whether they had foot-and-mouth disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry if I did not make the situation clear. 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 of checking the virus, because the virus is not there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know much about the medical or veterinarian end of it, but as I understand it this disease remains in the marrow of the bones of the cattle and can be transmitted for a very considerable time afterward. So it seems that it would still be possible to make laboratory tests to determine whether they had it and still carry it.
This afternoon and again this evening the minister referred at some length to the quarantine which was put into operation. According to my understanding that quarantine is really not very effective, and a considerable number of the farmers in the area concerned have no great confidence in it. I understand that the people within the quarantined area have been going into McLean and other towns quite readily, and their children have been going to school. This has all been going on ever since this disease first broke out, and it is still going on. So as far as any close quarantine is concerned, it just does not exist. There are all kinds of chances for the disease to spread from that area at the present time. It is not much use

to be told that a close quarantine exists when from other sources you learn what is actually taking place.
Another matter I was very much concerned about was what the minister said tonight, I think for the first time, about this disease having been first detected at the Burns plant in Regina. The information I have was that cattle with this disease had been in the stockyards in Regina and in the Burns plant, and that some of these feeder cattle had been shipped to various parts of Canada. Sometime in the future I would like the minister to state whether those shipments have been traced, and what has been the result. It seems to me that perhaps the most serious aspect of this affair as far as the spread of the disease is concerned is the fact that it was present at this plant and these stockyards, and that cattle were shipped from there to various parts of Canada and the United States.
Another point in connection with the spread of the disease on which I have not heard anything so far is whether any steps have been taken or are contemplated, or can be taken, to prevent the spread of the disease up and down the Qu'Appelle river valley through the deer and other wildlife in that area. I do not know whether there is any other wildlife but deer, but it seems to me one of the greatest dangers in connection with the spread of the disease right across the country, once warm weather comes, is in connection with the wildlife, because from the Qu'Appelle valley it could quite easily spread by that means to every other valley in western Canada, and from there right across eastern Canada, and into British Columbia in the other direction. It seems to me some steps should be taken to ensure that this does not happen, because as I have seen the present quarantined area outlined on the map it goes right into the Qu'Appelle valley.
A great deal has been said about the various embargoes that have been imposed. We in the prairie provinces are in the unfortunate position of having embargoes against us in every direction, with the result that we have no place to go with our cattle or the meat produced from them. That being so, the price of cattle in the prairie provinces might drop to almost nothing, as the minister well knows. In this bill mention is made of fair and reasonable compensation. I trust that if the livestock market in the prairie provinces should collapse completely, whatever the going price might be would not be considered fair and reasonable compensation for the cattle which may have to be slaughtered. As a matter of fact there is a certain danger in the other direction as well. It may be that our situation as far as markets are concerned 55704-6i
Foot-and-mouth disease will become such that people will be glad to have their cattle condemned in order to get a market for them. That may be so if these embargoes continue for any length of time and we have no place to ship our cattle.
Floor prices have been mentioned. Generally speaking I have not been a very great proponent of floor prices in this house or outside it, or of the control of the agricultural economy or any other part of our economy. That is my position under ordinary circumstances. However, this is anything but an ordinary circumstance, and I believe there is every justification for floor prices under livestock of all sorts in order to protect the producers of western Canada. If necessary the surplus should be taken off the market by the dominion government and shipped overseas as a contribution to those countries which are badly in need of food.
Even the floor price which exists today is not working very well. The floor price on hogs is $26. The price actually being paid in Calgary for grade A hogs on Thursday was $22, that was $4 below the floor price which applies in Toronto. Why there should be this spread of $4 I do not know, but perhaps that is another question the minister may be able to answer when he speaks again. Certainly, there is no use putting in a floor price if it does not operate any better than that floor price does so far as the Alberta hog producers are concerned.
It seems to me that the whole embargo question is one which should be reconsidered by the people who placed those embargoes in effect, perhaps without the panic thinking which caused them to be put into operation. I would hope that after greater consideration some of these embargoes might be removed.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I have listened with a great deal of interest during the afternoon and evening to the discussion of this serious problem confronting agriculture. I agree with the member for Calgary East concerning the confused situation, and it seems to me that after the minister's statement it is more confused than ever. One question that still stands out in my mind is, whose cattle were found with the disease in the Burns plant? The minister has admitted that at least one animal was found in the packing plant. These packing plants know whose cattle they are killing, because they have to pay for them. I think the minister should be prepared to say from what farm the animal came. If he does not know, then there is something wrong with the set-up. I believe that has been well demonstrated this afternoon in any event.
We now come to the question of payment for the animals destroyed. As the minister
76	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease has stated, I realize that there are going to be losses other than the cattle because the problem is so involved. I am afraid, however, there is going to be suspicion and doubt in the minds of many farmers if the matter is left to the discretion of a board. After all, how many farmers in Canada know the members of the board? Good as they may be, when the farmers do not know them that doubt is going to exist. I feel, therefore, that some formula should be worked out that would give us something more definite when we consider these payments.
I have in my hand a copy of Hansard for February 29 in which I asked the minister regarding the payments for animals that were destroyed1 at Kintore, Oxford county, as a result of a disease known as trypanosomiasis. From the information at hand, it seems that those cattle came from Calgary.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I give that information now? I had intended to do so but in a discussion of other matters it slipped my mind. I believe the other day I stated that we would include the settlement in this legislation, but in discussing the matter it was finally decided that a better way of doing it was to make the payments which are now provided for under the act, that is the $40 or $100 as the case may be, plus the commercial value now. If they have not been made, they will be made right away. Then, we would put in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to cover an amount, similar to what is being provided for in this legislation.


Harry Oliver White: Will that also include the fifteen that died before the department had completed the diagnosis?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not certain, but we shall examine all the facts and deal with them reasonably.


Harry Oliver White: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is pretty well established that this disease, which is prevalent in equatorial Africa, is dangerous not only to animals but to humans. So far as I am concerned, it is passing strange that these two outbreaks should occur at this particular time and in such a peculiar manner. I am one of those who are alarmed at the possibility that the cold war has taken another turn. I mention that because of the fact that this occurred rather close to my own home, and the people are more or less concerned about it. They are concerned also with the fact that at least $100-I could be away out in my estimate-has been lost in the commercial value of every mature animal in Canada. This amount can be written off.
IMr. White (Middlesex East).]

Someone pointed out tonight that possibly that is partly due to the lack of speed in diagnosing this disease. It would seem to me, however, that whenever it was diagnosed as foot-and-mouth disease the loss would be bound to occur. The cattle which I mentioned came from the Calgary area. They are not Ontario grown cattle, and that was another reason which caused me to wonder why the outbreak should occur at this particular time. These cattle came from seventeen different farms to this one farm in Ontario and so far as I know, between the time they were collected at Calgary and the time they arrived at the farm, all of them contracted this disease.
I turn now to another point. Probably some of the members listened to the radio yesterday afternoon and evening when there was a broadcast under the auspices of the Department of National Health and Welfare concerning bacterial warfare. On April 18 the veterinary director general sent out a letter to all veterinarians in Canada directing them concerning the steps to be taken to fight these very diseases with which we are dealing tonight. This was supposed to illustrate that the department was prepared, yet today we have two outbreaks, almost simultaneously, of two different diseases. I am sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in his seat tonight. I intend to seek permission to put a copy of this broadcast on Hansard, because I should like every member to have an opportunity of reading just what went on the air yesterday over the national network, paid for by the people of Canada. The minister himself would not get up in this house and read this material because he could not back it up. I would term it as nonsense. I am going to read some of it and then I am going to give it to the reporters.


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


Harry Oliver White: No, I would not read it all. Several months ago the hon. member for Lanark warned of the dangers of bacterial warfare. This was a kind of dramatized program, belittling the people ' who are afraid that some of these things we are talking about tonight might happen. It is also passing strange that this incident should occur just at a time when we are discussing these particular problems. It would seem to me that it was done with the idea of probably getting the people to believe that such warfare is not as dangerous as they may think. I am going to read one or two sentences taken from it:
Naturally, a subject like biological warfare is pie to a group like this-loaded with fear, anxiety, ignorance and insecurity.

The announcer says that. Then further on the announcer says this:
What can you do with people so dumb? Even if you told them the truth, they wouldn't believe it. Even if you told them, for instance, that not only do we know how to cope with bacteria of all kinds but we're doing it every day.
Then further on again the farmer comes into the picture and says:
Hey, Milly, come on out and watch! There's the agricultural department's plane come over to dust the crops for us! Look, it's one o' them heliocopters, or whatever they call 'em!
Then the announcer says later on:
Canadians have a lot of know-how in dealing with sources of epidemics. Not only federal and provincial and municipal officers, but people in industrial, commercial and agricultural fields.
Then further on, again, the announcer says:
So much for Mr. Glomp's belief that nobody knows how to cope with germs. We're doing it every day. There is a complicated network of health services throughout the country, any or all parts of which can be called into special activity at any moment. There is nothing secret and mysterious about biological warfare. It's not a super-weapon against which there's no defence. There is plenty of defence, and scientists are at work every day planning preventive measures. For instance, they have developed a fluid which makes people immune or resistant to the well-known poison, botulism, . . . There are other people engaged in taking precautions against the people who might try to spread germs or poisons.
Industrial engineers know that saboteurs could cripple a war plant by spraying biological agents through the ventilation system, so they have devised special protection against that. Sanitary engineers know that a community's water supply is a vulnerable point, so they have worked out suitable precautions. Sale and manufacture of drugs of all kinds, as well as biological formulae are carefully controlled and inspected. If any suspicion arises that some form of biological warfare is being waged, every civil defence organization in Canada is ready to give information, issue instructions and go into action . . .
Mr. Chairman, I happen to have been in one of the civil defence headquarters last week, and they are certainly not equipped to do any one of the things that have been mentioned here. My opinion of what has been said in this broadcast could hardly be repeated in this house. At another point the announcer says:
Farmers are quick to notice changes in conditions of crops and livestock. Any unusual conditions should be reported promptly. Control measures are known-and they can be put into effect quickly.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: After three months.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, have I permission to put his document on Hansard?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that this document, as it has been quoted from in the house by the hon. member, should appear on Hansard?
Foot-and-mouth disease


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I will ask the hon.
member how long the document is. He has quoted several excerpts from it, and it is .necessary that it be translated. If it is a document several pages in length-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Throw it in the wastebasket.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why put it in?


George Alexander Drew: I think this sort of nonsense should go on Hansard in order to show the way in which money is being wasted.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. It is needless for me to repeat that whenever the chairman happens to have the floor it is not in order for other hon. members to come into the discussion. The hon. member for Middlesex East quite properly asked if he had permission to have this document printed in Hansard within the context of his own speech. It is now my duty to inform the committee as to what the document is. I was just looking at the number of pages. As hon. members know, a member who has the floor must express his own opinion. Whenever he wants to put forward an argument which he wants to support by opinions written by somebody else, if it is agreeable to hon. members of the committee that it be printed in Hansard in the context of the speech of the hon. member, that procedure is quite in order; but unanimous consent must be given. At this stage I must point out that the document consists of six pages and it is entitled: "Here's Health. Battle Bugs". Having said that, I am going to ask hon. members if they agree to have this document printed in Hansard in the context of the hon. member's speech.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Dispense.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As there is not unanimous consent, the hon. member will have to be satisfied with the excerpts he has quoted from the document.


James Arthur Ross: He can read the document.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member knows that if the whole document is related to the matter which is now under discussion, he can read it.	.


Harry Oliver White: You are going to have to submit to it now. I gave you an easy way out, and you would not take it. The document reads as follows:
Here's Health Battle Bugs
78	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I do not think the document is relevant to this discussion at all. I would protest against its even being read.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member, in the course of his remarks, has pointed out *that perhaps the disease which is now being discussed on this resolution had something to do with the cold war and the spreading of bacteriological warfare in this cold war situation. It is in this connection that he mentioned the document from which he has been quoting. We have all had experience with similar points before. In order to stress a point, it is quite in order to quote from documents, but not to do so too extensively. One may make his point and quote from documents; but he must not read a six-page document on a subject which is not strictly before the committee at the moment.


Mr. Casselman:: Has the Minister of Agriculture put on the steam roller?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. Do whatever you like to do about it.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I am not certain whether you ruled that I can read this document or not; but this disease called trypanosomiasis has been diagnosed as the disease that has been fatal to cattle in southwestern Ontario. It has been admitted by the doctors at the Hull laboratory that it is dangerous to humans. What I am trying to point out is that the bacteria that, by some means or other, have been introduced into Canada may be a part of the cold war, and the foot-and-mouth disease that we are discussing could also be part of it, and that we are going to pay out money to these very people who have suffered these losses because of this disease. This document that I hold in my hand here was issued by the Department of National Health and Welfare, in a broadcast last night dealing with bacteriological warfare, more or less telling the people that there is nothing to it, and that the department can cope with any situation that arises. What has happened in the last three months has proved that statement to be absolutely false; consequently I want to put this document on the record so that other hon. members can see the kind of propaganda that is going on and what we are paying for over our radio networks and in the public relations branches of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I think it is relevant; therefore I await your ruling.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think I have tried to persuade the hon. member that if he wanted to quote from it in order to make


his point that the spreading of this disease may be the consequence of the cold war that is going on at the present time throughout the world, he could do so. If he wants to quote from the document that he has before him to prove his point that would be in order. But to put on the record a six-page document is a different proposition, and I think he will agree with that.


Harry Oliver White: I accept your ruling.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think a wrong impression has been gained by the minister from what I said. I certainly am not trying to hurt anybody. I am trying to be helpful; I am trying to assist and sincerely so, but I do want to ask some more questions. Since the minister has found out so much between six o'clock and eight o'clock I think he will be able to answer these questions now. The minister is now endeavouring to say, apparently, that the first outbreak that was discovered on December 1 was vesicular stomatitis. He is saying that definitely now, but that foot-and-mouth disease was discovered or diagnosed on January 17. Is that the interpretation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not said that. I have said that he was out there on two occasions; one was on January 17 and I think the other was on February 15, two different months. It certainly was not diagnosed the first time, or he would have quarantined the plant. He only quarantined it after he was there the second time.


John Alpheus Charlton: It was not mentioned in the plant on December 2. Let me point that out. It was mentioned on the Waas farm on December 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: The second time that Dr. Childs was out there was in February, the first time was in January, according to the answer you got this afternoon.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, that is according to the answer I got this afternoon; it is not according to what the minister said previously, but we will let that slide. The point is that it was diagnosed by these two dominion government veterinarians-at least they visited this farm on December 1 or December 2. They apparently thought it was sufficiently dangerous to quarantine that farm, did they not?


James Garfield Gardiner: For a while.


John Alpheus Charlton: All right; then, Mr. Chairman, on January 15, and not until January 15, according to the minister, did the veterinary director general go out there, and now the minister says he diagnosed the case on

January 17 at the Burns packing plant or abattoir in Regina as foot-and-mouth disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that. I did not say any such thing. I said that a case of a disease was found at the Burns plant, and I stated in answer to a question that I was not certain as to the date at which it was discovered, but Dr. Childs was out there in the middle of January, and he did not diagnose the disease as foot-and-mouth disease. He went back in the middle of February and did diagnose it as foot-and-mouth disease; at least he thought it was. Then he brought the virus back and got the serum over and proved that it was by the way that he thinks it should be proved but my hon. friend says he does not agree with it.


John Alpheus Charlton: As a matter of fact I do not think that Dr. Childs finally did diagnose it;
I think it was Dr. Mitchell at the animal research laboratory in Hull.


James Garfield Gardiner: Dr. Mitchell carried on the blood test in Hull, but it was Dr. Childs who was out at Regina and thought the disease might be foot-and-mouth disease.


John Alpheus Charlton: Where was the diagnosis actually made, in Regina or Hull?


James Garfield Gardiner: It depends on what diagnosis you are talking about. You said that the one that was done with the serum that was brought back from Britain is not a diagnosis at all.


John Alpheus Charlton: I said the serum was not
necessary to make a diagnosis.


James Garfield Gardiner: You said the diagnosis was made on the ground by individual veterinarians and any veterinarian could do it and those veterinarians apparently did do it in six days. Now seven veterinarians did the diagnosis and said it was not foot-and-mouth disease at all and cleared these men entirely after the quarantine had lasted, as I recall it, down to about the 5th or 6th of January. They were given a clearance stating that they had no disease at all.


John Alpheus Charlton: Of course, Mr. Chairman, there is no use arguing back and forth across the floor this way, but I still say that the minister has not answered my question as to when the first animal injections were made in the area, which are necessary to make a differential diagnosis between the three diseases I mentioned this afternoon. When were these first animal injections made?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot tell my hon. friend whether the injections that he thinks ought to be made were made at all or not. All I
Foot-and-mouth disease can tell him is that the best officials that we have made whatever tests were necessary and-


John George Diefenbaker: They did not make any.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did make some tests. It is no use making these wild statements when you do not know anything about it.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a wild statement.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister knows all right. Will he tell me when they were made? I think he knows.


John George Diefenbaker: If he does not he should.


James Garfield Gardiner: To relieve my hon. friend's mind, I do not know any such thing. I know that the men were there and they made their reports. As to whether they made the kind of test that my hon. friend thinks ought to be made is an entirely different thing.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not my idea alone. I want to point out very strongly that it is not my idea. I can still read textbooks. I still study, and that is what the textbooks say.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all right. I suppose our men still read textbooks also.


George Alexander Drew: Apparently they do not get much from them.


John Alpheus Charlton: Just because some veterinarians in the minister's department do not think they need to make these tests in order to make a diagnosis does not go to prove that all the rest of us are stubborn.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that that is the way they act. They simply used the knowledge that they had at the time that they were there, and they determined that it was not foot-and-mouth disease. Dr. Childs goes back in January and looks the thing over again. He was not convinced that it was foot-and-mouth disease apparently. Then he goes back again in February and he is suspicious that it is. As soon as he had that suspicion he recommended that the area be quarantined, and it was quarantined. Three or four days later he was able to prove conclusively that it was a certain type of foot-and-mouth disease, and that has been designated and the United States boundary has been closed. Nothing has been done about the district other than to add on one more municipality in which one more case was found, and that brings it up to ten instead of nine as it was originally.


John Alpheus Charlton: I still say that from January 15 to February 16, which is a period of more than a month, the nature of the disease should
80	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease have been ascertained. It was neglect on the part of the veterinarian in charge, whoever he may be, that these animal injections were not made to differentiate the disease so that a definite diagnosis could be made in that period of thirty days. The minister should find when the first animal injection test was made to differentiate that disease and to make a definite diagnosis.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: There are two or three hundred families in Regina tonight facing the threat of unemployment. Can the minister say anything to allay the fear which is in the minds of these people? Can he tell me first of all when he thinks that the Burns plant and the Intercontinental plant will be reopened?


James Garfield Gardiner: If we finish debate on this bill and get it through before Thursday night I will go out to Regina myself on the invitation of the Saskatchewan government and check over the situation which does exist there. But if we are still going on discussing the bill-it does not look now as if we are to get through tonight-if we are to take another day or two on it, I may not be able to go.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the
minister tell me when he thinks the plants will be reopened?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I cannot tell you.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Is the government prepared to reimburse these men who are losing their livelihood, through no fault of their own?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will settle that, in due course. I do not think they are expecting my hon. friends to make an argument about it tonight.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The government is prepared, and rightly so, to reimburse the farmers for what they have lost. But the wage earners are losing their earnings. Is the government prepared to make any gesture toward helping them? Has the government any policy to help the wage earners who are thrown out of employment because the plants are being closed?


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole matter will be considered, but I cannot tell the hon. member what the government policy is until it is settled.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The government is prepared to reimburse farmers who are losing money. Is it government policy to reimburse those who are losing their earnings?
IMr. Charlton.]


An hon. Member:: What about unemployment insurance?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Let us
consider it from the standpoint of unemployment insurance-that miserable pittance upon which men are supposed to live. Can you tell me whether the government is prepared to waive the nine days of waiting time in connection with these men who are now unemployed, or do they have to wait those nine days before they can get the unemployment insurance?
Because of government action these plants are closed. Is the government prepared to do anything in the matter to help these packing house workers? I am asking the Minister of Labour that question, because I cannot get an answer from the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can say this-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have
asked the Minister of Labour.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was this government that brought in unemployment insurance, and the workers have the benefit of it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: And the
government took long enough to do it, too. Will the Minister of Labour tell me whether the department is prepared to waive the rules and regulations in so far as these packing house workers in Regina are concerned, in connection with the nine-day waiting period?


Mr. Gregg:: All the Minister of Labour can tell the hon. member is this, that the employees in the packing houses in the west will be treated in exactly the same way as other workers in Canada who are thrown out of employment because of conditions over which they have no control.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Then I
understand the answer is no. I will ask the Minister of Agriculture once again: Has the government any policy for reimbursing these wage earners? Is it prepared to help them out in this time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Government policy is
covered by the unemployment insurance legislation which is on the statute books. In the meantime the cases are covered by that. This cannot be settled until we know what we are doing. There is always the possibility that even the plant may have to be destroyed.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Surely it is clear that no one can tell when we are going to come to the end of the emergency. Why could not the minister incorporate in the bill some measure of relief for these

workers who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed? We are prepared to agree to reimburse the farmers who have lost their income. Why should we not be prepared to help the workers in the packing house industry who, for the same reason, are losing their income? Surely this is a matter of equity and justice.


Harry Oliver White: Is the minister prepared to tell us the farm from which the animals came that were diagnosed as having the foot-and-mouth disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would suggest that the hon. member put the question on the order paper, so that I might bring down the name. I will get the names of all the people who have had animals-and there are twenty-three of them. I will get the names of the owners of the twenty-three animals involved.


Harry Oliver White: They are not all on one farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they are not all on one farm. We will get the farm the hon. member has in mind, as well as all the others. In that way he will have all the information. And so that we may keep ourselves informed, I shall place on the table from time to time a list of the farmers whose stock has been destroyed, and what they have been paid.


Harry Oliver White: This has been occurring over more than one day or one week? It did not all happen in one day, affecting twenty-three different farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: As soon as our men were notified about it, Dr. Childs did go to Regina and check the whole thing. That area was quarantined.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the resolution carry?


George Alexander Drew: No. The only reason this is still being discussed at this time of night is that the Minister of Agriculture has deliberately avoided giving definite answers at any time since this bill was introduced this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend wishes to be fair about it, I will say again what I said once before, that I have not got the information that is being requested. There is no reason why I should have it at this particular time. But if my hon. friends wish to hold up the legislation to get every detail that they think they ought to know something about, then go ahead and hold it up.


George Alexander Drew: And, Mr. Chairman, that is typical of the kind of remark that has delayed proceedings all day. It is precisely like the
Foot-and-mouth disease old melodrama that probably the minister himself has seen, where two people are fighting a duel on the stage. One of them is being sorely pressed, and he says to the other, "Look at yon wandering crow"-and then the fellow looks up while the one who spoke sticks him.
And that is exactly the type of argument being carried on by the minister. He has scarcely answered a single question directly today. That is the reason the matter is still under discussion-and there is no other reason.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the reason.


George Alexander Drew: That is the reason. The Minister of Agriculture has not made any effort to explain one perfectly simple fact, or to answer one perfectly simple question. This is not some obscure tropical disease that is unknown to the veterinarians of Canada. This is a disease recognized as one of the dangerous diseases that must be checked and must be diagnosed in its earliest stages.
We have great veterinary colleges in Canada. We have great veterinarians. The simple fact is that the statement that this disease cannot be diagnosed without serum is sheer and unadulterated nonsense. If that were so we would have no protection in this country against the importation of animals carrying this disease. We have always supposed this was being carefully guarded against at all times. If we need this serum in Canada to discern the disease, then procure it elsewhere. We should have the serum in Canada. We have great laboratories here. We have the Banting institute in Toronto.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are international
regulations with regard to it.


George Alexander Drew: There is no difficulty about having our research institutions provide whatever serum of this kind is required. And, in any event, we are only a matter of twelve or fourteen hours away from the English supply, if it is needed. Either we need to keep the serum here for a purpose of this kind, or we should produce it here ourselves.
But if the minister's explanation is correct, that there is nothing surprising about not being able to diagnose this within three months, then any suggestion that we really afford protection at our borders against the possibility of diseased animals coming in, and bringing in foot-and-mouth disease, is sheer and unadulterated pretence.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not my contention.


George Alexander Drew: It is one or the other. The fact is, the minister knows very well that every graduate veterinarian in Canada is trained to

Foot-and-mouth disease recognize this disease-because any of those men may be called upon to inspect animals at the border. This is one of the diseases that must be diagnosed immediately, and that must be determined before the animals are allowed in. For the minister to say-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question?


George Alexander Drew: No. I am going to deal with this for a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has the habit of saying that he is going to ask a question, 'and then getting entirely away from the point under discussion.


James Garfield Gardiner: I let everyone ask me questions; but you do not need to unless you wish.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: The point is that the only purpose the minister has in asking questions is to divert attention from the questions being put.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


George Alexander Drew: We have before us tonight the suggestion that there is nothing surprising about a delay of three months in diagnosing a disease that has been known for many long years, and in regard to which graduate veterinarians from every veterinary college in this and other countries are well trained.

Would the minister suggest that if a doctor failed to diagnose some well-known disease in human beings there would be no reason for criticism? In this particular case there has been gross negligence somewhere. Instead of going around in circles and putting up a smokescreen such as we have seen today at a time when the people of this country are so greatly concerned about the consequences of this disease, I suggest it would have been much better if the minister had come before the house and said what is the obvious fact, that there has been gross negligence, that gross negligence of that kind is not going to occur again, that we have taken steps to make sure that there will be no similar cases of negligence, that we are going to stop it by having instituted proper supervision of the animals of this country, and that we are going to provide assurance that where there is disease it will be diagnosed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I presume it will be the desire of the house to continue with this discussion tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 4, 1952