May 11, 1925

LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

Yes, he can, because he is not dependent entirely on the quarter section. Nine times out of ten they have a ranch, a leasehold and a considerable number of cattle; and there is no doubt that the ownership of a quarter section is a good influence upon the younger generation; it makes them feel they have a real stake in the country. I fancy that this will work out all right, but I would not want to extend it to any large area. You would find it difficult to discriminate, as we are doing here, if it were made of general application.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Suppose a man and his family are ranching in a purely ranching country, the father having taken a homestead there because he wanted to have a central point round which his family would gather. Within nine miles there is no homestead [DOT] available; it is all ranch land, but twenty miles away there is. Now, another fellow is ranching within nine miles of that place twenty miles distant, and the first man's sons cannot get that other homestead. It is not fair.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

That is the general limitation in the act with respect to the son of a farmer.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I thought there was

something under which a man within nine miles had some advantage over the rest, but I cannot just recall what it is.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

He did not need, for example, to build a home upon his land.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Certainly; that is reasonable, but that does not justify this. I knew there was a case in point, and I am now reminded of it: A man has a family of boys, and if one of them homesteads within nine miles he is not obliged to build a house, because he can live at home. But then he is not given a preference in the matter of selection of a homestead, over the family of another fellow who is only a few miles away. The one man gets a homestead in a purely ranching country. That is what he ought to do; that is where he ought to go to ranch; but because he went there his family is debarred from going into another district and taking a homestead of good land, while the farmers' sons who happen to be in that

district get it. I think the minister will find he will be in hot water over it.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

They are not debarred from going out and getting a homestead anywhere, but for this particular purpose they are.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

They are in this particular.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

This land was pretty well settled at one time. When the people went away did they leave the land unpatented, or is it not very largely held by private parties now?

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

A great deal of it that has been abandoned has never been proved up. I can quite appreciate the suggestion that men who are in there ranching or farming might want a privilege of this kind for their children in order to keep them in the district. A family can run a ranch at much less expense if they do not have to employ hired help. Of course it is as well to have the son in the vicinity, because he does not have to carry out all the improvements that are required to prove up if he goes out on his own account and leaves the locality in which the family reside. In many cases there may not be desirable land within nine miles of the ranch, and it is only where there happens to be land that will pass inspection that this provision will apply. I do not encourage the taking out of such land as homesteads; as a matter of fact, I think it would have been well if that country had been retained purely for the purposes of ranching and had not been given to homesteading at all. I am now speaking of areas that do not lend themselves to agricultural purposes.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Donald Ferdinand Kellner

Progressive

Mr. KELLNER:

Does the minister think a quarter of that land would be worth taking if the applicant had other lands, say seven or eight miles distant? Would one quarter of it be of any use to him?

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

I think in

the cases we will recommend it will be, because they will possibly start the nucleus of a new ranch, possibly on a. smaller basis. It will permit the working of the area by the family themselves. I think the men who are in the locality and know the situation fairly well believe that this is worth while trying out, and I have myself given it some considerable thought. I want to say frankly that I was very prejudiced about this at first, because I have been doing my level best in these particular areas to get them back into ranching as fast as possible, believing that that is the only occupation to follow in some

Dominion Lands Act

of these areas in both provinces; but right within a few townships you will find men who have made a splendid success of farming operations. Though it is patchy, they have been successful and have done as well perhaps as any settlers ini the country, but there are other areas, sandy, and of a light nature, where it is a mistake entirely ever to break up the sod, and those are the areas where we are trying to have ranching done, and where inspectional work will be carried on very carefully, with a view to having those unsuitable areas that have been homesteaded turned back into ranching. It is not intended that any very light sandy soil will be permitted to be homesteaded by anybody.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UFA

Alfred Speakman

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPEAKMAN:

I think the principle embodied in this bill is rather a good one, and I cam quite see the reason for the nine-mile limitation. That is the limitation that is placed fn the case of residential duties for the sons of farmers or of other men who own property, because in a ranching country a boy taking a homestead within nine miles of his father's homestead can do ranching work conjointly with his parents, and that is just about the outside distance at which that can be done. As far as I have seeen, going through that country, and I am thankful to say that there is very little of that kind of land in my constituency, the minister is right in assuming that there are scattered homesteads that it would be well worth while taking up when the main occupation to be followed is ranching, and while it would be utterly useless to allow an outsider to come in and expect to make his whole living on that quarter section, it does provide an additional steading for the boy or brother or any relative of the family who is engaged in ranching with his father or brother or other relative. I have had many requests made of me that I should support anything of this nature. I am not supporting it because of the requests, but because I see there is good, sound sense underlying those requests, and with the safeguard that no entry will be permitted on manifestly unsuitable homesteads, I think the provision is a wise one and will be of value in trying to hold the boys of that district in the district, in the occupation which they are used to, and within reach of their father's home.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

John Morrison

Progressive

Mr. MORRISON:

I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Red Reer has just said. In my constituency there are quite a number of farmers who have sons to whom this provision will be quite a benefit. Requests have also been made of me from time to time to

try and get a provision such as this put through whereby they can have access to those lands. I agree that lots of these lands are not of a quality to warrant a man taking them up and making his home there, but as the father is already farming in that part of the country and well established there, this provision will be a good help in maintaining the family and keeping them working together. While it is not for the benefit of outsiders, it is going to be of real help to many residents in that country.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

I believe thoroughly in the

principle of the bill, but instead of limiting it to the boundary of township 16, I think the minister would have done well to extend this privilege over the whole of the old dry area as mapped out in the bill of 1906. I think this privilege might well be extended over the whole of that area, because the conditions that are spoken of in reference to this particular area prevail over other large parts of the province, and while there are a number of homesteads that I know of myself, which would never be worth while taking up as homesteads, they might be very useful for grazing purposes to those who are farming within say nine males. I think this privilege should be extended to cover the whole of that dry area.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

I hope my

hon. friend will not raise that upon this occasion, because there is a good deal to *be said with respect to the point raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition. It is a very difiieult thing to administer special privileges, and this undoubtedly is a special privilege. I make no other claim for it, because we are shutting out outside competition, and that is a rather delicate thing to do. When we get into this thing we may have a controversy over a homestead, for instance. I want to try it out in this particular area first and see how I get along with it, and I would be just a little bit afraid of extending a special privilege of this kind over too wide an area to start with.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Neil Haman McTaggart

Progressive

Mr. McTAGGART:

I desire to endorse the principle of the bill. I think I made that clear the other evening. Permit me to say that I do not ask that this privilege be extended beyond the limit set here in the bill, but I would like to ask the minister if in regard to such parcels of land as come under this act, it will be necessary for these lands to pass inspection by officers of his department.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):

Oh yes.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Section agreed to. Dominion Lands Act



On section 2-Sale of sdhool lands for right of way, etc.


May 11, 1925