Forest Prairie Edge

by Merle Massie

  Resource Development

  The creation of Prince Albert National Park led many to speculate on the imminent rise of tourism and the possible “opening” of the provincial north to resource development. During the park’s opening ceremonies in 1928, Prince Albert MLA T.C. Davis and several other prominent men commented on this theme. “The park will not only serve as a place of recreation for all time,” Davis declared, “but as a step nearer to the greatest period of development that northern Saskatchewan has yet experienced.” Rosthern MLA J.M. Uhrich added, “standing virtually at the gateway to the great northern hinterland with its wealth of mine, of forest, lake, and river, the new Park stretches out a beckoning and inviting hand.” Uhrich went on: “The proposed utilization of Churchill River power sites in this province for the mining operations in the Pre-Cambrian zone, coupled with the timely opening of the new National Park, augurs, in my mind, a development of mining, timber, fish, fur and power resources of the province likely to be as inspiring and expansive as that which marked agricultural development of Saskatchewan’s fertile prairie belt.”11 His comments foreshadowed what historian Liza Piper documented as an expansive boom period in northern Canada. In contrast to the dust and devastation in southern agricultural and manufacturing regions, the north experienced “a period of economic growth and expansion” during the 1930s. This story, she argued, “inverts classic accounts of the impact of the Great Depression in the Canadian west.” The north, she declared, followed its own “economic trajectory.”12 Increased commercial fishing and extensive mining development (including the boomtown of Goldfields at Lake Athabasca in Saskatchewan’s far north), brought a measure of prosperity through extractive industrial development. Communities at the forest fringe, tied to northern resource development through employment, freighting opportunities, and provision of foodstuffs, experienced a significant boom.

  An important aspect of the Great Trek migration and northern boom was the 1930 transfer of Crown land resources from the dominion to the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.13 The transfer, long negotiated by the provinces, led to extensive changes in homestead regulations and land settlement practices. New homestead entries were suspended in the fall of 1929 to allow each province to create its own legislation. Saskatchewan initiated a Royal Commission on Immigration and Settlement to look into the issue of how to set up land, homestead, and immigration policies for the province. Instead of continuing the ten-dollar filing fee and dominion regulations, the province decided that all remaining Crown agricultural land should be sold for no less than one dollar per acre, with a down payment of 10 percent, or sixteen dollars. The balance was to be paid in yearly instalments. As a legal agreement between buyer (homesteader) and seller (Crown), the new regulations seemed innocuous at first, but they soon forced potentially cash-strapped northern settlers to make land payments each year with money that could otherwise have been put into land-clearing or operating costs. Payments, in some cases, were soon in arrears.

  Policy makers understood that Saskatchewan land was prized most of all by Saskatchewan residents, reflecting an in-depth understanding of a long-practised provincial south-to-north migration and the popularity of second homesteads during the 1920s. Land was offered on an inverted pyramid to Saskatchewan residents first, then to Canadian residents, and then to British and other immigrants. The commission also recommended a detailed investigation of lands to determine suitability for farming or industrial development—a land classification system such as the dominion used to determine soldier settlement land in 1919. Historian Dawn Bowen argued that, “unfortunately, the Commission’s findings were released during a period of unprecedented economic turmoil, so in spite of the practical advice offered to ensure orderly and efficient settlement, most of its recommendations were ignored.” The economic devastation caused by the Depression, which manifested quickly in Saskatchewan, halted land investigation. Good or bad, northern land was soon filled with drought refugees.14

  Another casualty of the natural resources transfer was the effective demise of the dominion-sponsored Land Settlement Branch. This branch had been shepherding the dominion’s assisted land settlement schemes to soldiers and others, whereby families were offered transportation reductions, loans, and other supports to promote successful settlement. The provincial government under J.T.M. Anderson moved with surprising alacrity to continue a provincial version of this scheme. The Land Settlement Act, proposed in 1930 after the formal transfer of Crown land from the dominion, gained formal assent in the spring of 1931. An assisted land settlement policy, this act targeted farmers intending to move north to the diversified mixed-farming areas. In place with modifications for several years, the Land Settlement Act has consistently—and incorrectly—been interpreted as a Saskatchewan response to the Depression.15

  In light of the tradition of dominion land settlement schemes during the 1920s, it is more appropriate to think of the new Land Settlement Act, at least initially, as a continuation of dominion schemes within a Saskatchewan framework. Tracing changes in government-assisted settlement from the homestead policies through soldier settlement to land settlement shifts the focus and gives a clearer picture. The Great Depression, however, radically changed execution and even purpose of land settlement policies. The difference between the land colonization schemes of the 1920s (sponsored by either the Department of the Interior or the railway companies) and the relief land resettlement schemes of the Depression was that the Depression land policies were interpreted, administered, and used as essentially short-term relief measures to ease southern prairie resident problems rather than a promotion of permanent northern settlement.16 But land settlement as short-term relief could not remain the driving force. As northern migration continued and trekkers stalled in their attempts to convert the forest into farmland, the provincial government refocussed its attention to solving northern problems. The mandate of the Northern Settlers Re-Establishment Branch, created in 1935, was to promote and support permanent settlement and resilience in the communities across the forest edge.

  The Great Trek

  Geographer Denis Patrick Fitzgerald used the term “the Great Trek” to describe the south-to-north migration of prairie settlers into the northern forested environment during the Great Depression, but he drew the words from Depression migrants and contemporary commentators.17 As southern farmers felt the dual prongs of dust and economic disaster, northern migration escalated.18 From 1931 to 1937, the worst year of the drought, northern migration was part of the fabric of life in Saskatchewan.19

  Environmental devastation and economic depression slammed prairie farmers in a double whammy. Wheat prices slumped and then plummeted after the stock market crash in the fall of 1929. In addition, extreme drought conditions devastated cereal cash crops. Farmers reaped poor returns. Those who had taken mortgages, purchased equipment, or had other loans in the boom years of the mid- to late 1920s were faced with payments that they could not meet. Nor did they have enough crop to keep any for seed for the following year. Those who relied on wheat returns to meet payments or purchase basic supplies were soon in trouble.

  Perhaps even more devastating, the drought burned fodder crops such as oats and hay to a crisp. Farmers faced the dilemma of owning animals that they could not feed. Relief feed and fodder—the majority from northern regions that had not been hit by the drought—eased the burden, but hundreds of animals died from malnutrition and starvation. Others were taken north or into Manitoba to graze, reinforcing the image of parkland and forest as a place of natural abundance. Animals were also shot to save feed and fodder costs.20 “I thought of our stock trying to get feed off the sand-filled pasture,” Mrs. A.W. Bailey said.21 Moving north, where feed and water were more accessible, seemed the only humane option.

  Drought conditions and sand storms shredded prairie gardens and crops, leaving sand and dust piled and covering what remained. Historian Peter Russell suggested that drought-pro
ne farms “had a limited capacity for either subsistence or diversification,” preferring to use their cash crop (wheat) to purchase all household staples, including food. Some wheat farmers neither kept animals nor grew gardens prior to the Depression, he noted.22 The economic slump pushed many to attempt those traditional farming practices, but environmental devastation stymied those attempts. The same drought that shattered the wheat economy would not allow diversification or even simple subsistence strategies such as growing a garden, keeping some hens, or feeding a milk cow. Grass, water, and feed were scarce, and farmers began to rely on government handouts. Those who wanted to keep body and soul together moved north.

  Moving was indeed a trek for many families. Although the McGowan family chose to move their possessions north in a boxcar, thousands of migrants made the move overland, using their own cars, trucks, wagons—“makeshift vehicles constructed from old implement wheels and boards torn from an empty granary”—or ubiquitous Bennett Buggies. To make a Bennett Buggy, you would remove the engine of the family car (since there was no cash for gas, oil, or repairs) and lash a wagon tongue on the front. After harnessing and hitching a team of horses to the wagon tongue, the driver carefully removed the front window and slid the reins through. Most drivers would disengage the steering mechanism, but leave the brakes intact. Cars had springs and nicer interiors, and many had a roof to keep off the rain and snow. The resulting crossover vehicle was named after R.B. Bennett, the prime minister of Canada from 1930 to 1935—a folk tribute and public commentary on his leadership during the Depression.23

  During the Great Trek, motley vehicles, from trucks to wagons to Bennett Buggies, were loaded precariously with furniture, goods, children and grandparents, food for the journey, as well as any agricultural implements, crates of chickens, or the family cat. Larger stock, such as horses, milk cows, and the family dog, walked alongside. Migrants likened their outfits to those of gypsies or the great wagon trains that snaked across the Great Plains in an earlier time. Families, often several from one community making the move together, or several adult siblings moving as an extended unit, camped out each night, their fires dancing along the roadsides for miles. Soldier settlers commented that the exodus reminded them of war refugees in Europe.24

  Many people in Saskatchewan still remember those years, both those who participated in the Great Trek and those who watched the caravans go by. Drought and economic devastation had brought the Weyburn region virtually to its knees. Bill Grohn of Weyburn, a hale ninety-nine-year-old in 2013, told me that “our community was broken.”25 Lila Sully of Biggar, on Highway 4 from southwestern Saskatchewan to the Meadow Lake region, remembered roads choked with migrants on their way north, stopping to water their animals, eat a picnic lunch, or camp for the night.26 Depending on place of origin and destination, the trek would take anywhere from two to six weeks, barring unforeseen circumstances.

  Map 15. Great Trek destinations in Saskatchewan.

  Source: Adapted from Fitzgerald, “Pioneer Settlement.”

  Edna Dobie (née Brook) of Prince Albert was a twelve-year-old girl when her extended family made the move from a farm near Moosomin to the north Prince Albert region in late 1931. A flat tire on the first day caused the overloaded Model T to roll, smashing the windshield and top and tumbling all those inside. Edna recalled her mother screaming when she saw her children splattered in bright red in the back seat. A quart of precious strawberry jam had smashed. Her parents and uncles breathed a sigh of relief, righted the car, used barbed wire to hold things together, poured oil into the engine, and were then ready to continue. The family eventually arrived at their homestead about fifteen miles north of Paddockwood, in an area bypassed by fire. Tall spruce and deep moss greeted the prairie children, who thought that they had moved to fairyland—it was green, damp, and filled with Christmas trees.27

  Figures 30 and 31. Trekking north.

  Sources: Glenbow Archives, NA-1609-1; SAB, NAC-A044575.

  The contrast between the environmental devastation of the prairies and the green northern forests resonated in family histories published in Cordwood and Courage and other local history books from forest fringe communities. Trekkers—even those who eventually moved away—reminisced about the transition from dust to mud (or snow) and from brown to green. “How green everything looked!” said Elsa Blumer, who moved to the Paddockwood district in 1931. “I really did not care where we moved to as long as we could get away from that windy dust-bowl prairie,” she declared. Esther Craig remembered that, when she arrived at their Paddockwood farm in 1930, “the clear air and the green trees were lovely after the dusty prairie.”28 The striking contrast formed a large part of Mrs. Bailey’s published account of her family’s move north: “We talked of moving to a place where there were green grass and shade. It would be a veritable heaven after so much dust and wind,” Bailey recalled.29 When the family arrived, Mrs. Bailey, born a prairie girl, was overcome with homesickness, but her children delighted in climbing trees, making forts in the brush, and swimming in lakes and ponds. For the parents, though, a rough bush homestead meant an enormous amount of work. Historian Jim Wright commented that “once more the log cabin with earthen floor swept by a broom made of willows became a reality in Saskatchewan. Dad ploughed the grey bush soil for a garden plot. The lads tracked and snared bush-rabbits, and rabbit pie appeared with monotonous regularity on the family table.”30

  The number of acres farmed in Saskatchewan went up during the 1930s across most of the census divisions. The rising acreage reflected a threefold expansion: the surge north to develop new farms, the opening of more acres in parkland regions, and the expansion of prairie acreage to try to grow more crop. When wheat prices declined dramatically, farmers increased their acreage to grow more bushels on newly broken, fresh land—a move that signalled their recognition that the land was not able to hold its fertility.

  Each family’s situation or inclination dictated the decision to make the move, but economics and drought were two primary motivations. “For the past six or seven years crop failures have occurred..., and once prosperous farmers who had fairly large bank accounts were reduced to near poverty. Seeing their savings dwindle every year, with no returns from the land or their livestock, they decided to leave,” reported the Regina Leader in 1934.31 G.J. Matte, minister of the Northern Settlers Re-Establishment Branch (created in 1935), explained that trekkers included farmers from every class:

  All manner of people were to be found in this movement. There was the rich farmer, owner of vast acres of wheat fields turned overnight into a drifting sea of sand. There was the small landowner who made a fine living from a small farm which cost little in effort and gave large returns. There was the man who had been expanding, farming many acres in which he had a large equity. We might call this man the greatest loser because he not only lost all he owned, but was left with enormous debt which he despaired of ever paying. There were the renters, and those who had always been on the edge of poverty but found themselves now in equal circumstances. They were all completely destitute.32

  The decision to move north was a strategy of adaptation that addressed the immediate needs of the farmer and his family: the choice was either to accept relief and stay on the prairie or move to a place where at least part of the family’s needs could be met with garden produce, natural hay to feed stock, and local forest resources of fish, game, and berries. Those who moved north in the early years, 1930 or 1931, generally had more savings and established a firm hold. Others hung on in the south, breaking more prairie land and hoping each year for a crop until their savings were exhausted. By the time they trekked north, some were virtually destitute.

  Analysis of the Great Trek

  W.J. Mather, writing for Maclean’s magazine in 1932, called the Great Trek “the greatest internal migration Canada has seen.” Compared with such a migration, he noted, “the movement of the historic Barr colony of 1,200 persons to the country ar
ound Lloydminster is small.” Mather estimated that 10,000 people made this move in 1931 alone; if so, then the estimate of 45,000 people over the whole of the migration period is probably too small.33 Surprisingly, despite his description, there has never been a detailed, scholarly examination of the Great Trek.34 Articles, theses, and government reports abound, along with novels and stories in local history books, but for the most part the story of the Depression migration in Saskatchewan (as well as somewhat smaller movements in Alberta and Manitoba) has almost disappeared from Canadian public memory. Saskatchewan provincial historians Jim Wright, John Archer, and Bill Waiser each devoted some attention to the movement, but it deserves broader investigation.35 Even public historian James Gray, known for his swashbuckling storytelling style, denied the trek its depth and impact: “There was no massive migration or general exodus; there was only a steady trickle.”36 Clearly, he was wrong. Gray went on to note, in a spectacular case of analytical mediocrity, that “the prairies lost 247,000 people between 1931 and 1941; … the short grass country of Saskatchewan alone lost 73,000.”37

  Map 16. Rural population change, Saskatchewan, 1931–41. Numbers show population increase from zero.

  Source: Adapted from Holdsworth and Kerr, eds., The Historical Atlas of Canada, 152. Used with permission.

  Not only were Gray’s numbers shockingly incorrect, but also their presentation glossed over the nuances of what really happened. Saskatchewan’s population continued to climb throughout the Depression, peaking in 1936, contrary to Gray’s popular depiction.38 The provincial population stood at 921,785 in 1931. By 1936, despite the brutal effects of the Great Depression—which hit Saskatchewan the hardest—the provincial population had grown by 10,000 people, to 931,547. There was a population decline in the southern census regions but a corresponding increase in communities and municipalities across the forest edge.39 As well, there was a drop in the urban population of Saskatchewan from 1931 to 1936 of over 10,000 people. Overall, these numbers show a preference for rural life in the forest fringe over either prairie or urban options during a time of social and economic upheaval.40 By the end of the 1930s, largely as a result of northern migration between 1919 and 1937, it was estimated that one-third of the province’s population lived in “northern” areas.41 Saskatchewan’s population fell to 895,992 in 1941, due in large measure to the war effort and the opening of manufacturing, service, and military positions elsewhere. The net out-migration of 35,555 people, though significant, was far less than Gray’s gross overestimate of 73,000 plus.