Michael LUCHKOVICH

LUCHKOVICH, Michael, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
United Farmers of Alberta
Constituency
Vegreville (Alberta)
Birth Date
November 13, 1892
Deceased Date
April 21, 1973
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Luchkovich
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=6d793e44-6c06-4c2c-9d9b-b6c100053abb&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
teacher

Parliamentary Career

September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
UFA
  Vegreville (Alberta)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
UFA
  Vegreville (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 58 of 58)


February 27, 1928

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

The Jew? Well, I

do not think he believes in purgatory.

I have heard it stated many times in this house and I have heard it stated during this budget debate that the government has been responsible for the exodus of many young Canadian men and women into the United States. I have no reason for agreeing with the government, but on this occasion I would venture to state that the government is not wholly to blame for this wholesale emigration. I believe there are certain subtle and insidious influences entering into this matter which are beyond the control of any government. Some one in this house has said that Canada is a geographical absurdity. Perhaps this is one of the reasons; but there are other reasons which are not of a rational but rather of a mystical nature.

Last spring it chanced that I paid a visit to a doctor friend of mine in Detroit. I admit that I was deeply impressed when, on getting off the train at Windsor, I beheld the countless numbers of tall skyscrapers skirting the Detroit river on the American side and looming up into the skies in majestic grandeur. The sight seemed all the more striking when one compared the luxuriously constructed American side with that of the city of Windsor. I have often wondered ever since how that grand sight has affected the countless young men and women who have had the fortune or perhaps the misfortune of viewing it as I viewed it. I am not a student of psychology, but the place once seen must have stirred up a conflict of emotions in their young breasts. Many of them, doubtless, would feel that they could do better over on the American side; and this feeling is naturally augmented by the fact that many of their friends have done well in the states. If a poor young Canadian girl, unknown and unheralded, leaves Toronto and makes a name for herself as the greatest living American actress, is it not reasonable to assume that others would like to emulate her success? I refer to Mary Pickford. If it is possible for a poor young Toronto boy practically to traverse the continent down to Los Angeles and win a $25,000 prize, does it not follow that other boys would like to do the same?

The United States is a very populous and rich country, older by many years than Canada. There is no doubt that wonderful progress has been made in the last decade, but just the same I for one prefer to live in Can-

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich

ada. I prefer the quiet dignity of Canada to the loud egoism of the States; I prefer the stem but fairer administration of justice in our law courts; and finally I prefer the splendid morale of my people to the looser living of the folks across the line. Once I stepped into a law court in the United States and I was quite surprised to find two lawyers sitting on chairs in the law court and smoking cigars. They had their hats on and they were vying with each other as to which one of them could emit saliva into cuspidors about twentydive feet away from them. I am sure nothing of that sort happens in Canadian courts. We have in this country decorum, dignity and many other things which the people of the United States do not possess.

You tell me that the youth of our land has gone to the States. Well I believe that the process will be reversed just as soon as we begin to forge ahead a little more. I do not, however believe in colossal strides in progress. That is what is wrong with the United States; they are going ahead too fast, with disastrous effects upon the chastity and morale of her people. It is better for Canada to forge ahead slowly but surely and to keep her traditions of dignity, courage, chastity and thrift intact, than to go ahead by leaps and bounds but at the same time destroy all we should hold dear as life itself. I am an optimist. Our boys and girls will come back and so will Canada, not because, but in spite of, the Robb budget.

And what is that budget we hear so much about nowadays? From a Liberal viewpoint, summed up briefly it means a lowering of the cost of living to the people, while at the same time giving every reasonable protection to industry and every possible encouragement to the promotion of trade within the empire. They call it a "work and thrift" budget. But is it a "work and thrift" budget? Let us see. The government each year has been spending more than the preceding year. Its surplus is, therefore, not the product of economy. Now the Minister of Finance has declared that the government's policy is to work both ways-to reduce debt and to reduce taxation. These may be admirable objectives, but I feel sure he would be able to do each of these things more acceptably to the Canadian people if he would produce surpluses by economy as well as by budgeting for a large revenue. I believe the minister will admit that 1927 was a comparatively good year, so that when a government budgets for nearly $55,000,000 more than it spends and taxes the people enough to secure the budgeted income, it is not difficult in a period of expansion to produce a surplus.

I realize that when I speak of economy the Minister of Finance may say: "All right,

then, we shall withdraw our assistance for good roads and technical education and also increase the freight rates and use the extra income of the railways to promote immigration." This, I contend, would be false economy; and I understand he favours the withdrawals in all cases. I would like to point out, however, that the dominion treasury was enriched by about two and one-half million dollars last year from the liquor business in the province of Alberta alone; but that the amount for roads and technical education paid out to Alberta by the Minister of Finance was very small in comparison. Practically all the provinces are now engaged in the liquor trade. When one considers the fact that the government receives more from this trade than do the provinces themselves, the talk of economizing by withdrawing the grants for highways and technical education is extremely unreasonable.

I understand that Sir Henry Thornton, whether on the initiative of the government or not I do not know, has a proposal to increase freight rates and to apply the extra income derived therefrom to promote immigration. This would be discrimination, and I see no reason why the shippers of this country should carry our immigration burden. Immigration is a general policy and should therefore be a general charge upon the whole community. If the minister wishes to economize he can do so by a weeding out process in the departments, by amalgamation of branches that could be practically run under one head. Tax reductions were made last year at a sacrifice of $27,000,000 in revenue; this year the reduction amounts to $19,000,000, so that $46,000,000 might easily have been added to the curtailment of our huge war debt which, strange to say, hovers every year in the neigbourhood of about $2,600,000,000.

A payment of about $1,000,000,000 falls due in 1933. It bears interest at 5i per cent. The minister of Finance proposes to take advantage of the favourable condition of the money markets and retire this debt with money borrowed at 4 per cent. I think this is good business and I have no quarrel with the minister on that score. It is good economy.

In so far as the sales tax is a heavy burden on the consumer, I approve of its reduction on the necessaries of life.

And now I come to that "most unkindest cut of all"-the income tax. During the course of the budget debate last year I remember some one on this side of the house remarking that the farmer is opposed to a reduction in the income tax because he does not have to pay any income tax at all; that he desired the repeal of the sales tax law because he could not evade the sales tax.

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich

The truth of the matter is that there are very few farmers whose incomes for taxation purposes reach beyond the exemptions set by law, and even if they had such incomes they would prefer to pay income tax to paying either tariff taxes or sales tax. It is the belief of all farmers' organizations that reduction of taxation, as it becomes possible, should take place by reducing and removing those protective duties on imports which increase the cost of living and production in preference to a reduction of other indirect taxes, such as the sales tax, and that the income tax should be maintained at substantially the scale then in force. Farmers want the retention of the income tax, not on the basis of any class interest but on the definite principle of equity in taxation and the desirability of taxation being direct rather than indirect. They do not ask the repeal of the sales tax, as an indirect tax, until after the existing duties on imports have been removed, since they regard the sales tax as somewhat less injurious than the tariff.

The income tax in 1926 produced $55,571,961.57, and after the 10 per cent reduction the Finance minister estimated that the income tax would, in 1927 produce $47,900,000, a loss of over $8,000,000 from this source. Of course, the government has been bombarded by all the large income tax payers, who naturally want relief. The argument that the income tax reduces funds available for investment in industry has been worked overtime. Of course it is quite true. But all taxes have the same effect. When the farmer pays his various taxes, visible and invisible, he has just that much less money to invest in the development of his own industry. But it must be remembered that the income tax is the only federal tax which compels people to contribute to the cost of running the country in proportion to their ability to pay. We do not believe that the income tax, even before this last reduction, bore unduly or unfairly upon any one. It should not be forgotten also that just as the income tax is reduced so will the proportion of indirect taxation increase, and a heavier load will be placed upon those least able to carry it.

Last year's budget has been described as a rich man's budget. In view of the further cut in the income tax I know of no better name for this year's budget than to call it the richer man's; for where the man who is capable of paying last year paid 10 per cent less, his income tax this year virtually becomes 20 per cent less. At this rate it will soon be eliminated, and this means that the great majority of Canadian people

[ Mr. Luchkovich. ]

will hereafter pay taxes to the federal authorities only upon consumption in the form of tariff duties, which go to the treasury when paid upon imported goods, or to the manufacturers, who, under shelter of the tariff, *can charge higher prices for competing articles of domestic production.

Why should we in Canada be so anxious to reduce the income tax when countries like England and the United States still retain it? Why should the Minister of Finance lend a willing ear to these who are best able to pay, many of them still enjoying the fruits of war profits, and then thrust the burden upon the backs of the common people? In the United States 64 per cent of their taxes come from the income tax, in Canada less than 14 per cent. Last year the income tax brought $48,000,000 to our treasury. Why should the government wish to reduce it? Not on the ground of equity, for it is the most equitable of taxes; not on the ground of visibility, for it is the most visible of taxes; not on the ground of certainty or convenience, for it is the easiest tax in the world to collect. There is absolutely no justification in the world for reducing the income tax in view of the paltry reductions made in the tariff. In view, therefore, of the staggering figures of our huge war debt, and in view of the almost negligible reduction in the tariff, I see absolutely no justification for the minister lowering the income tax.

The average man at home looks upon the member at Ottawa as a person who is supposed to " bring home the bacon ". In the old parties it means getting as much patronage for your supporters as you possibly can; and in this respect I look upon the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), as the grand daddy of them all; in a word it means " to the victor belongs the spoils".

The phrase about " bringing home the bacon " was coined by the old negro mother of Joe Gans, the prize fighter. On the eve of one of his greatest battles she said: "Joe, I expect you to get into that ring and win; your old mammy will be praying for you, so don't forget to bring home the bacon ". Thus when I speak of " bringing home the bacon " I mean bringing home victory for those who sent us here. What we want is a square deal for the farmer, nothing more and nothing less; but how can we do it when the Minister of Finance continues to sizzle our bacon to a frizzle? The farmer wishes to get the same equal treatment for his industry that the manufacturer is getting for his. I should like to dissipate the view held on this side of the house that we in this corner are a band of outlaws come out from the wild and woolly

The Budget-Mr. LucKkovieh

west to burn up their factories and carry o2 their wealth. We are just as law-abiding as they are, and we are just as serious in putting our industry on as sound a business basis as we already realize they have done with theirs. All we ask is an equalization of opportunity; in other words, we want equal rights for all and special privileges for none.

What I would like hon. members to know, who think that the farmer has no grievance, is that there is -too great a discrepancy between the prices the Canadian farmer receives and the prices he has to pay for what he buys. Nobody will kick about 75 cents a bushel wheat if shoes are down to S2. We realize that laws will not do everything for us-and I am sure this year's budget will not -so we are beginning to do things for ourselves. We have learned how, by cooperation and education, to avoid exploitation by middlemen. We are striving to put our farming on a business basis and we hope to see the time when we can make businesslike decisions on our own initiative.

I repeat, therefore, that all the Canadian farmer asks is the same right which other Canadian industries now enjoy, through their superior organization, to name a price in the first instance, and to acquire an organization which will secure to him the same power to maintain that price. This we are striving to do, mostly through personal initiative, and partly through legislation; and this is my idea of the noblest way of " bringing home the bacon

I should now like to deal with the question of immigration, especially in the light of what has been said during this budget debate. No one seems to oppose immigrants coming into this country, but they do question the method or manner in which they are brought here. I for one, deep down in my heart feel that we need more people here, and I am courageous enough to say that I do not oppose immigration. This country is big enough and good enough to contain three times its present population. There is one thing certain about the position of a member of parliament, and that is that he never lacks for material of all shades of opinion. Thousands of pounds of mail in the shape of letters, pamphlets, magazines, books and newspapers reach the members during the session for their information or misinformation. Yesterday I received a copy of the Montreal Star containing an article marked with a blue pencil, on the failure of our immigration policy. The whole argument is so much in line with what our Conservative friends have to say on this subject that I am intrigued into quoting a part of it:

It is an extravagant and cruel folly to entice people to come to this country and to leave them stranded here without means of earning their livelihood.

I am in complete accord with that part, but it goes on to say that only through a protective tariff policy can we get immigration. With that I am not in accord. Some one has said that ouir immigration policy is very analogous to the famous old rhyme:

"Will you walk into my parlour,"

Said the spider to the fly,

"It's the prettiest little parlour That ever you did spy."

But if the fly was wise He never would go in;

He would know very well There was nothing there for him.

I know a case where some false representation has had beneficial results in the end, but this is an exception to the rule, and in any case it could never work out in the same way to-day. I know a district in Alberta where a settler who came here thirty years ago felt quite lonely because he was there all alone. He wanted more of his own villagers to settle there with him so he wrote back home saying that Canada was a most luxuriant country where everything from hay to coconuts, peaches and bananas grew in the greatest abundance. It was not long after that letter was received away back home in the old country that that whole village became depopulated, for they all sold out and came to Alberta. Of course at first they were all sorely peeved, but being a very hardy race they soon adapted themselves to conditions here, and to-day they are among Alberta's best settlers. I have said that this is an exceptional case and should not be followed as a general rule by the immigration authorities.

I object again to the commercialization of immigration, which enriches a few individuals at the expense of the country. Immigration should be controlled by the Dominion and not delegated to private individuals or associations. The Dominion should select the immigrant and when he gets here should see that he is properly placed.

I do not believe in paternalism or a spoonfed immigration. I know from experience with immigrants in the past that those immigrants who had the least means and help were the ones to make the best success; while those who came here i.n comparative luxury are now virtually begging off their more prosperous neighbours. I say emphatically that paternalism is a vicious animal which will finally turn upon and bite its master. This is no country for mollycoddles; what we want is the hardy red-booded pioneering type that

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich

scorns being fed with a silver spoon, but will roll up his sleeves and tackle without a murmur any obstacle that may confront him.

And how best can we bring them over here? To my mind the best and safest method is to allow families already settled here to bring their relatives to this country, provided they are fit and of the proper type. This will ensure to the country that someone at least will be responsible for them when they get here, and that they will not become a charge upon the country. Of course other supplementary methods could be suggested, but my time is short. And from where shall we bring those immigrants? From any country under God's sun that has the proper, adaptable type for a country like Canada; meaning, of course, a type of the white race that would be amenable to our ideas and democratic form of government. I object strenuously to the suggestion that the central European does not make a good citizen. A good citizen is a man who behaves himself, pays his taxes, does the right thing by himself and his neighbour, and, last but not least, is a sticker. The Germans and Scandinavians make wonderful settlers, but so do the Ukrainians. In a few years they have acquired the language of this country, and an understanding of our institutions as good as the best of them. I think that the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) will agree with me that in the institute in his constituency there are about 120 of the finest Canadians of Ukrainian extraction one would ever meet. I repeat that measured by every possible standard the Ukrainian becomes as good a Canadian as any of them. I have said that he is a sticker, and I mean it; for what avails it to a country, if a native born would rather flaunt his patriotism by waving a flag and rocking the boat than putting his hands to the oar. I have seen many of our native born run up a debt and then leave their farms because they would not live within their means. True patriotism, I insist again, also includes persistence and frugality even under trying circumstances.

I know it is hard to be patriotic under trying circumstances, but no man is a true patriot unless he has character; and character after all can only be moulded by a persistent battle with those circumstances. The man who comes out of such an elemental conflict successfully is a man of strong character. It is probably this that the Irish politician had in mind when he said: "Oh, never mind the foreigner, he is all right. In a few years he'll be out of the skinned class into the skinners and he'll then be as patriotic as any of us." If we wish to make the foreigner patriotic we must meet him half way and give him a

fair chance in the world. If we wish him to share our responsibilities we must stop discriminating against him; we must stop making him the goat of all our social unrest. Let us remember that it was a central European who risked his life in the Hollinger mine to save native Canadians, from death. Surely this example alone should prove that he is actuated by the same high motives as our native born. So why should we not help him instead of hindering him from becoming a genuine Canadian citizen?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

March 17, 1927

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what is going to be done with the amendments to the Grain Act.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   RE-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Full View Permalink

March 17, 1927

Mr. M. LUCHKOVICH (Vegreville):

I

have received more than a dozen letters in the last week from farmers of the west asking me what the government is going to do in regard to the measures that were before the House last year, but which failed to become law owing to the dissolution of parliament. The farmers of the west are very anxious to know what is going to be done; they do not wish to see these measures go by the board, and they are afraid that some of these measures might not be re-introduced in this parliament at all. I have a letter here from P. B. Anderson, of Tofield, Alberta, dated March S, 1927, and reading as follows:

Dear Sir:

At the untimely dissolution of the last Dominion parliament there were several important measures that went "in the wash". I am referring especially to the Agricultural Credits bill and to the amendments to the Grain Act. Those two measures, it seems to me, are of the greatest importance to us farmers of western Canada. We are therefore keenly and anxiously watching and waiting to know what will be done with them at this session of parliament.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   RE-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Full View Permalink

December 14, 1926

Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):

Mr. Speaker, my fondest wish at the present time is that my voice could be as great as the province from which I come, and that my eloquence might be as lofty as the mountains which skirt the western part of that province. I could then voice the sentiments of the inhabitants of that fair province in a manner befitting its greatness and the important part it is bound to play in the affairs of Canada. Being a new member, however, and never having run the gauntlet of Liberal and Conservative criticism, I feel that I am taking a chance of being heeded or even given a favourable hearing. I feel, however, that I am speaking as a citizen of a great country, to whom has been given the honour of representing one of its constituencies, and as such I hope this, my maiden speech, will be the beginning of a truer Canadian citizenship, a citizenship which I hope to impart to the people in my constituency, especially to those whose origin was 32649-6i

in a foreign country. As it happens, I do not belong to a group commanding a very large membership, but that will in no waj prevent me from doing my duty as a good citizen; on the contrary, I believe that only in this group can I do my duty conscientiously and faithfully.

During the past three days I have noticed that there are different stages to the debates in this House. There is the jollicose stage; then we have the bellicose stage, and finally the comatose stage. I saw evidences of the comatose stage this afternoon, when in looking at the other side of the House I saw and heard two or three hon. members vociferously snoring. We are now dangerously near bedtime, and I do not wish to speak at any great length; in other words, I do not wish to put any hon. member into the comatose stage.

In the speech from the throne there was brief mention of a substantial increase in immigration. The views of individual men are different on this subject. As a matter of fact, one hon. member has said that it is useless to spend a million dollars bringing settlers to the farms when that money could be spent more advantageously otherwise, but no matter in what light we view this subject, immigration is always before us, and it has been a policy of every government in Canada since confederation. I understand further that immigration from northern and central Europe has been urged, or at least looked upon with favour in certain quarters. In my constituency there are many immigrants of Scandinavian and Slavic descent, and I can vouch for the success attained by those men. They have, under the most trying circumstances, made good, and are now from every point of view first class citizens. I do not mean to say that I advocate bringing in immigrants only from Scandinavian countries and from countries of eastern Europe. There certainly must be a leaven of British in this country so that we can retain our institutions and our ideals as we have always had them in Canada. Individuals, however, differ very much as to the merits of an immigration and colonization scheme. Some would like to follow the United States in her "partly-closed policy", and stem the tide of agricultural people from eastern and central Europe. Apprehension is being felt for the safety of this country if this influx is not stemmed. It is based on a fear that the foreign stock resident in Canada would soon be out of a safe proportion to the native stock; that the Canadian farmer would be menaced with an agricultural over-production. These conditions really do not exist in Canada and in view of our present state of under-development,

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich

therefore, such an apprehension is absurd. The United States followed for a century the open door policy. Her population now is actually over the hundred million mark, and she is thus in a position where she can quite readily overtake human wastage from natural increase. In such a case a limited immigration is quite justified. But to Canada, in her undeveloped condition, the same argument cannot be applied.

A few weeks ago I met a man on the train coming down from Alberta to Winnipeg and he asked me why it was that so much of the comparatively poor land in Alberta was occupied by the peasant class, by Ukrainians. He thought that some of the farms would be the last place he would settle on. This friend of mine unconsciously gives us the keynote to the whole situation. About one third of the arable land of Canada is alienated and occupied. It is almost safe to presume that most of this area of arable land already occupied comprises the best land. The remaining area of unalienated arable land would be either medium or inferior. Here we have our problem. It is these medium and inferior lands that we must try to colonize successfully. How are we going to do it? These lands can only be reclaimed by intense human labour, and this involves clearing, the digging out of stones, drainage, and breaking. It involves years of patient industry, self sacrifice and self denial. No one but a pioneer of great sturdiness and endurance could successfully create for himself a home on such land. That type, I believe, can be found in the central European peasant. He has shown us in the past that he is quite capable of surmounting the difficulties incidental to pioneer farming, and that he possesses all the virtues and qualifications essential to such a task. Of course it is quite understandable why an influx of settlers from European countries should be a cause for alarm from a patriotic standpoint. British sentiment, ideals and institutions might be endangered. I do not think so. Take the United States for instance. For a hundred years immigrants have been coming into the republic from every European country, but her institutions are just as strong to-day as they ever were. It is a very significant fact that the children and grandchildren of those immigrants are just as loyal to the country of their adoption as the native born are. Our problem will not be helped at all by discrimination, or by making the foreigner the goat of all our social unrest. To discriminate means to alienate, and alienism only leads to a worse problem. What is needed primarily i3 clear and sane thinking. I do

not see what we have to fear in the peasant. It is true that when these people first came here thirty years ago they were somewhat unobtrusive so far as taking part in civic affairs is concerned. They did not seek to exercise a directing influence in the affairs of this country because they were too busy establishing homes for themselves. But to-day, after the lapse of all those years I can safely say that they are beginning to make an intelligent contribution both to our social and political life. Aa evidence of this we have hundreds of their children in the professions, and some are serving a political representative capacity. Measured by all standards they are quite susceptible to Canadian ideals and influences. As far as they are concerned the question of citizenship is bound to arise, but it will come best if allowed to come in a natural manner. That course has been followed successfully in the United States, and there is no reason why the same success should not be encountered in Canada. The process of amalgamation is, I think, inevitable.

In dealing with this question I am reminded of the remark of an Irish politician, who, in speaking of immigration, said: "Don't worry about the foreigner. In about ten years he will get out of the skinned class into the skinners, and he will then be as patriotic as any of us."

Some day it is hoped our province will get control of its natural resources. At the present time Canada is very much underpopulated Here again we differ from the United States The latter country has sufficient area and resources for its people and enough people for the development of its resources. In Canada our resources are plentiful but the population is insufficient for their development. There is in Canada, also, another peculiar condition. Our agriculture and manufacturing production, our railway mileage and commerce, and all our other industrial enterprises are far out of proportion to our population, as compared with most other countries. I believe that by bringing in immigrants animated with a genuine pioneer spirit this condition could be amended.

I notice also in the speech from the throne that those government measures which passed the House last session, but which failed to become law, will be reintroduced. For one thing it is sincerely to be hoped that the Canada Grain Act amendment will be brought in again. In the next place legislation on rural credits if enacted will not only be of assistance to farmers and workers already

The Address-Mr. Church

located here but will be of material benefit in connection with an immigration policy.

There is also .the question of railroads. A country that produces the world's best wheat and oats, such as the Peace River district, must offer unrivalled opportunities for settlement. It is a region of marvellous productive ability, with many thousands of acres of cheap land awaiting the settler's plough. A great immigration movement could be started in that direction. The only thing necessary to bring that about is an announcement that the Peace River district will be given an outlet to the Pacific coart; without delay.

Another railway which would be heralded with great joy by settlers in northern Alberta south of the Saskatchewan river, is the new railway which the Canadian Pacific is building from Out Knife, Saskatchewan. The influence of the government in speeding up construction on this line would be greatly appreciated in that part of the west. As it is now many of the settlers there, and the district is very well settled, have to haul grain as many as forty or forty-five miles to the nearest point of transportation.

It is also to be hoped that the government will not discontinue grants to B-circuit fairs. Such fairs are of immense educational value to the communities in which they are held. A discontinuance of such grants would kill all interest in such fairs, as the committees in charge depend largely on these grants to finance their undertakings. It is said by some that it would be better to give grants to fairs in cities like Toronto. I think that even cities like' Toronto get most of their exhibits from small country places as Vegreville and other towns of its size.

This morning I received a resolution from the Town Council of the town of Tofield, which reads as follows:

Resolved, that whereas Cooking lake forest reserve contains much arable land and land suitable for the raising of live stock, and while it is at present being used by the Blackfoot Stock Association to some extent for the ranging and pasturing of cattle, this town council is of the belief that this land could be best utilized, and would become of the greatest use to the greatest number if it were thrown open for settlement and homestead entry.

We therefore suggest to the hon. Minister of the Interior, for his consideration,' that that portion of the Cooking lake forest reserve lying south of the Edmonton-Mundare highway be thrown open for homestead entry with the right of pre-emption, or purchase at a reasonable figure, of a further quarter-section.

I happen to know this Cooking lake reserve. It contains about 66 sections of land, and if it were settled on the basis of one settler for each half section, about 130 settlers could be

placed on it. I think it would be a far better scheme to place these settlers on the reserve than to have the reserve used as it is now by the Blackfoot Stock Association for the ranging and pasturing of cattle. I think it would be of greater advantage not only to that community itself but to Canada as a whole if this land were thrown open to settlers. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will take cognizance of the remarks I have made.

Topic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink