THE BRITISH COLUMBIA DEBATE
Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER moved the resumption of the
adjourned debate on the proposed motion that the Speaker do leave
the chair, for the House to go into committee of the whole to
consider certain resolutions respecting the admission of British
Columbia into union with Canada, and the motion of Mr.
Mackenzie in amendment thereto.
Carried.
Hon. Mr. GRAY resumed the debate. He said that it mattered
little how this House might regard the measure unless they were
backed up by public opinion, and that opinion was greatly affected
by statements made in this House. The measure should be viewed
by the light of the ledger, in the practical light of the present day,
rather than in the light of the past. This House should regard it too,
in the light of the experience of the neighboring Republic, and see
how we might profit by it. As had been observed by the hon.
member for Sherbrooke, there were two precautions to be taken.
The constitution was in no way to be infringed and the Dominion
was not to incur a financial burden too heavy to be borne. In this
view, he believed every member in the House concurred. And first,
with regard to the objection urged against the representation of
British Columbia that it was too large, he would say that the British
North America Act did not limit representation to the white
population but even if it were so limited, the number of
representatives under the circumstances of that Colony was not too
great. When the Manitoba Act was passed last session exception
was taken in the debate to the representation given to the new
Province, but the reply was that the expected increase in the
population would,
within a very short period, be proportionate
March 29, 1871 COMMONS DEBATES
291
to the representation. This view was not disputed by the hon.
member for East Toronto, or by his hon. friend from Bothwell.
Hon. Mr. GRAY would quote from the hon. member's own
speech to show that he had not objected to it.
Mr. MILLS said he would not accept any report made last
year as a correct one.
Hon. Mr. GRAY would quote from the
Globe report, which
the hon. member would hardly object to. The passage of the
hon. member's speech referred to, contained the following:
"The representation was based no doubt, on the expectation of
an immediate increase of the inhabitants, but he contended that
it would be better to give representation to the number of
people, increasing the number if it was thought best, every two
years, or leaving to the local legislature if they thought it
better." Here was the expression of opinion from the hon.
member, and thus, though the point was raised, there was no
record on the journals of the House, no action taken, no
resolution or amendment moved to show that the representation
of Manitoba was unconstitutional. The objection that was taken
in debate last session by the hon. gentleman was as to the power
of the Parliament to give representation at all—not as to its
numerical character.
Here then was a precedent for this case before the Hous—ia
precedent established by the House itself. He had no fear that
the smaller Provinces would be overridden through this Act. If
the representation were to be based strictly upon population
according to the law as at present interpreted by the hon.
member for Bothwell, British Columbia would have but one
representative, if any. Now, in that colony there were two
separate and distinct interests, the insular and continental. The
country was divided into two sections, Vancouver Island and the
main land. 1f the colony were permitted to send but one member
to this House, which section would he represent? He could not
represent both very well, and one of them would remain
unrepresented. It was clear, therefore, that no other course could
have been adopted with reference to this point, than that
embodied in the measure before the House. The position he took
with reference to this question was this, that until the Province
became a member of the Federal compact, it would not be
governed by the provisions of the British North America Act.
That the terms and conditions on which British Columbia came
in were to be agreed on, and ifit as an independent province she
chose to say her interests required our representatives in the
House, she could, and there was nothing in the British North
America Act to prevent our acceptance of such a proposition,
but afier she came in, her future representation must be
governed by the 31st section of the British North America Act,
and must revolve like that of the other Province, around the
representation of Quebec as a pivot. ln accepting her therefore,
as set forth in the resolutions in that respect there was no
infringement of our Constitutional rights under the British North
America Act, and thus the first point stated by the member from
Sherbrooke was complied with. For it must be assumed that if
there were other important constitutional objections they would
not have escaped the acumen of the member for Durham West.
The next point was as to our capability to enter upon the
contemplated arrangements respecting the Pacific Railway. The
necessity, of course of communication with the Pacific was
admitted by every hon. member who had spoken on this subject.
The Government did not propose to build the railway
themselves, but it would be done by companies, and if the land
grants should prove nearly as valuable as it was alleged they
would, the cry of one hundred millions which was used to create
so much alarm would prove to be a mere bugbear. With regard
to the part of the line falling in Ontario he was not prepared to
speak, but with respect to the other portions he desired to say
something. The hon. gentleman here described the mode and
means by which the Pacific Railway from Omaha to Sacramento
was built, shewing the companies, the land grants, and
Government Bond subsidies in aid, describing the character of
the country, and the difficulties which met the constructors of
the road, the unstable nature of the soil about the Missouri
River, the arid character of the American desert, and the Alkali
plains, the elevation of the passes of the Rocky Mountains, and
of the Sierra Nevada Range, and went on to explain how the
Government Bond subsidies were divided, increasing
proportionately with the cost of construction of different parts
thus preventing the Government aid being entirely used on the
easy gradient, and thereby obviating further calls on the
Government. The American Government had divided the
subsidy, giving one amount for the easy part of the line, and a
larger amount for the difficult sections. The whole bond subsidy
amounted to fifty-eight millions, and in addition a land grant
was made of alternate lots of 20 miles along the route. The cost
of the entire road had also been largely increased to the extent
of twenty millions by a stipulation that no rails should be used
except those of home make,—a limitation which would certainly
not be imposed by us—as our rule was to buy in the cheapest
market.
Hon. Mr. GRAY resumed his description of the construction of
the American line, and the difficulties met with in that work. He
quoted from a speech of the member for Lambton made last session
during the Manitoba debate, shewing that the Canadian line would
pass through an infinitely better country than that through which the
American line had passed.
292 COMMONS DEBATES
March 29, 1871
Mr. MACKENZIE said his words had applied to the portion
lying between Red River and the Rocky Mountains.
Hon. Mr. GRAY said he admitted that he had spoken in that
limited sense, but that covered 1,400 miles of the distance. As the
American line had been built at an expense of sixty millions, what
fear need there be as to the cost of the Canadian line, which would
pass through an infinitely better country, and the elevation to be
attained would be much less. (The hon. gentleman here read
extracts of Cheadle & Milton's work, shewing that whereas the
highest elevation of the American line was 7,400 and 8,000 feet
above the level of the sea, the Jasper House or Yellow Head Pass
through the Rocky Mountains, with us was only 3,760 feet, with a
gradual slope on either side; and also showing the nature and
character of the country on this side of the Rocky Mountains, and of
the valley of the Fraser River on the other.) It had been alleged that
the line must necessarily be built within ten years, and that if a
company would not undertake it, the Government would be obliged
to do it.
Now, the Americans had built their line in three and a half years,
and could it be supposed that the Canadians were so inferior that
they could not build a line of comparatively easy construction in ten
years. And in the light of the experience of that country, how could
it be said companies would not be found to build the line. British
Columbia possessed every means of becoming one of the most
prosperous Provinces in the Dominion, and indeed its union had
been one of the stipulations of, and inducements for Confederation.
He then spoke of the prosperous condition of the Dominion at
present to show that Canada need have no fear of the responsibility
it was proposed to incur, and referred to statistics to prove his
position.
The Member for Durham West had based his statements that
Canada could not bear the burden to be laid on her, under the
impression that the Dominion would have to pay one hundred
millions, but that was not the case. There was a vast difference
between the burden of a work of that amount—say 100,000,000
borne by various parties—public Companies—land grants and aids
of different characters—and the cost of the same work borne by one
exchequer. It was not intended that the exchequer or revenues of
Canada should bear the charge of the work, but simply that they
would aid it. If Canada should refuse to give this aid, the work
would pass out of her hands, British Columbia would not be
included, and the Dominion, instead of becoming a great and
leading power on the continent, and advancing in material wealth
and prosperity, would revert to its old position of discontented and
opposing Provinces, small and insignificant—the worse for having
thrown away the opportunities which had been afforded her.
Mr. JOLY said when he had listened to the discussion, he could
not help thinking of the fable of the frog and the ox. The frog had
admired the size of the ox, and deciding that it was its duty to
become as large as the ox, it went on swelling until it burst, and
when he had heard the description and glowing terms of the
Minister of Militia, he thought he could see the Dominion swell like
the frog. It was very fortunate the Pacific made a boundary to the
land to be annexed, although it was true China and Japan were
beyond, and perhaps the Pacific might yet be made a Canadian sea.
When the Minister of Militia had named fifty-two millions as the
cost of the railway, he could only have referred to the cost to the
Dominion, and in the same way the population had been much
exaggerated.
Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER said he had stated the
population correctly at 63,000, being 15,000 to 17,000 Europeans,
some 5,000 Chinese and the remainder Indians.
Mr. JOLY must, of course, admit his mistake. He could not
consider the railway a Canadian but an Imperial Policy, and, of
course, it was natural that England should desire to see British
North America confederated and independent of the United States,
and if that was her desire, the best thing she could do would be to
aid in constructing this line of communication. The great advantage
Canada possessed over the States was her freedom from debt and
taxation, but if, to the present debt of $100,000,000 was added
another $100,000,000 for the construction of the railway, the debt
of Canada would become in proportion almost as large as that of the
United States, and Canada would lose her only advantage. He came
to conclusion that an additional debt of $100,000,000 would be
mentioned on account of the construction of the railway, from the
remarks of the member of the St. John. The Americans had paid
fifty-eight millions of dollars as a subsidy, and had made twice as
large a land grant; the money grant would have to be larger. For
years to come, the line could not pay a tenth part of its cost, and no
Company would undertake it unless they received every assistance,
for the line would not obtain anything like the traffic that the Union
Pacific obtained, and he believed the result would not be that the
Government itself would have to build the line. As to the time that
would be required to build the line, if the same energy were shown
as had been exhibited in the construction of the lntercolonial, the
Pacific would take twenty years. Why not say to British Columbia,
"we are willing for you to join us, but we cannot pledge ourselves
to this heavy expenditure—but if British Columbia only wanted to
see which country, Canada or the States would give them the best
terms, he, for one, was not prepared to buy them that way." The
present position of Canada and the States to each other could not
last much longer, and if more friendly relations should be
established, why should not Canada avail herself of the Northern
Pacific road until she was able to build a line for herself
Mr. JACKSON was glad to see the unanimity of belief that
union with British Columbia was a necessity, and that the
construction of a line of railway was also a necessity. It had been
conceded that the amount to be granted to British Columbia was not
extravagant, but objection was taken as to the mode of payment.
Objection had also been raised that the proposed representation was
too large for the population, but looking at the matter in a common
sense view only, although the abstract principle of
representation according to population might be right, he
thought area should enter into the arrangement, and he saw
March 29, 1871 COMMONS DEBATES
293
nothing in the objection. As to the objection of the railway
having to be constructed in ten years, British Columbia was to
be taken into the Union, and the understanding was that the
whole Dominion should be connected. The responsibility
might be great, but in all agreements certain conditions were
implied, which might operate to change the agreement. If the
present prosperity continued, there was no reason to doubt the
ability of the Government to construct the railway within ten
years, but if circumstances should prevent that, what danger
could ensue? He should certainly support the resolutions of the
Government on the grounds he had stated.
Some years ago he had entertained doubts of the success of
Confederation, but he was very glad to see how satisfactory
the results had been. He thought the definitiveness of the
proposition for the construction of the line, would obtain for it
greater consideration and greater confidence on the part of
English capitalists. He would not try to foreshadow the future,
but there was every reason for hope. The member for
Lotbiniere had said that the increased responsibility would
make Canada's debt equal to that of the United States, but the
view was most erroneous, for while the Canadian line would
open up a splendid country and consolidate the country, the
Americans had only destroyed property and desolated homes
without result.
Mr. MILLS would not have spoken but for the remarks of
the member for St. John. That hon. gentleman entirely
misapprehended the system of Government provided by the
British North American Act. He disputed his reading of the
constitution as affecting powers and duties of Canada in
relation to the colonies to be admitted into the Union. He had
contended the Indians should be embraced in framing the basis
for representation. That had not, however, been done as
regards the other Provinces. The Indians did not enter into the
social bond, and could not stand on the same footing as the
white population. The member for St. John argued that
because the principle of representation by population had been
violated in the treatment of Manitoba, it should be in the case
of British Columbia, and he had stated representation by
population was not the principle established by the
constitution, but the Union Act plainly showed it was and the
representation was to be altered every ten years in harmony
with the growth of the country and population, and in a
prescribed relation to the sixty-five members always to be
possessed by Quebec.
In answer to the member for St. John, he contended that the
phraseology of the Union Act proved that the terms applicable
to the four Provinces of the Confederation as to representation,
applied also to the Provinces after-admitted. The Union could
be extended only on the federal principle, and the principle he
now contended for governed his objections to the Manitoba
Bill last year. He held now as before that the very principle of
our constitution was violated in the terms we granted that
Province last year, that we had no authority to grant her
representation beyond that to which by population she was
entitled. So much for the precedent cited by that hon.
gentleman. He did not believe British Columbia would
complain of our altering terms before us in obedience to our
reasonable wishes and interests. If she was prepared to accept
reasonable terms he would not oppose her entrance into the
Union. If she was not so prepared, it would simply show the
time had not come for her admission.
As to the remark that we ought to be able to construct a
railroad in less than ten years, and that the Americans
constructed theirs in three years and a half, it was apparently
forgotten that their railroads previously extended a thousand
miles further west than ours, that they had thirty millions this
side of the Rocky Mountains against our four, and had a large
population on the Pacific coast and infinitely greater resources
on both sides of the Rocky Mountains than ours. He would
like to know how we could build it in ten years when at the
present rate of progress, and with our adequate means and
other advantages that Intercolonial would require seven years.
At its rate of construction, it would take 37 years to build the
Pacific Road. He was convinced we should not draw so largely
upon the future, should not incur obligations we had not
certainty of being able to meet. On this ground alone, were
there no other objections to the resolutions, he would be
disposed to oppose them. The geological survey of the country
was an incident of the local possession and management of the
lands, and it should be undertaken by the local authorities
alone.
We had no power to enter upon this work, the proposal of
which was another instance of irregular or illegal Acts we
were asked to perform. He would oppose the resolutions and
support the very proper amendment before the House.
Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN then proceeded to explain in French
the proposals and policy of the Government on this subject,
and to recite the circumstances that led to the submission of
this scheme, dating back to the period of Confederation. He
reminded the House that these terms had been accepted by the
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on the
understanding that they would not be altered by the Parliament
of Canada. In reply to the hon. member for Sherbrooke and
other gentlemen, he contended that the present terms were not
less favourable to Canada than the former, because in the first
instance the colony was to have four senators at Ottawa and
eight Commoners, while now she was allowed but three of the
former and six of the latter. With regard to the railway, he
urged that there was no comparison between the Intercolonial
and the Pacific road, because it would not be undertaken by
the Government but by a company upon the basis of a liberal
land grant and an annual payment of money within the means
of Canada, and without augmenting its debt.
294 COMMONS DEBATES
March 29, 1871
Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN: Who could doubt their finding a
company with the double inducement of land and money,
when in the States and other countries railways were begun
and completed on the basis of land grants only? We were
bound, irrespective of British Columbia, to construct a railway
to the Rocky Mountains, certainly through a magnificent
country for hundred of miles; but what would be the use of
stopping there? Would it not be to a certain extent money ill-
spent, when the road stopped short of the natural boundary of
the Dominion, of the natural ocean outlet on the Pacific? Our
interests undoubtedly dictated that prolongation. He
maintained that in a revenue point of view Canada would not
lose by this measure, for, as he had pointed out, the
consumption of dutiable goods per head of the population was
much greater that in Canada. There was already a population
of 60,000, including Chinese and Indians, many of whom were
civilized and useful inhabitants. He denied the statement of the
member for Lotbinière that we already owed $100,000,000,
our debt being but $80,000,000, and as the Government
intended having the railway built by a private company they
would incur nothing like another hundred millions of debt.
As to the pension list, several of the recipients could be
made useful to the Dominion as public officers. It was absurd
to suppose Canada could depend on the American Northern
Pacific Railway, and if we wished to extend our population
and trade and colonize our vast Western region, we must
possess a railroad through our own territory, instead of
travelling westward by one 100 or 200 miles from our frontier.
It was necessary to satisfy the Columbians, as well as to give
confidence to British capitalists, that a period should be fixed
for the completion of the road; but if in seven or eight years it
should appear with representatives from that Province sitting
among us, that despite our good faith and utmost efforts it was
impossible to complete the work within the time named they
could not and would not find fault with us. He did not
anticipate any failure, but looked at the worst contingency. He
believed it was our duty and our interest took to complete
Confederation and establish a British empire in North
America, with the freest institutions in the world, under the
British Flag now protecting us, and which would continue to
protect us so long as we desired. He believed his countrymen
of all origins and classes desired this result, and that trifling
difficulties would not induce them to abandon reasonable
effort for its attainment. British Columbia did not merit the
treatment proposed by the amendment and he hoped the House
would not refuse to adopt cheerfully the resolutions of the
Government. (Cheers.)
Hon. Mr. SMITH (Westmorland) thought the subject was
one of the greatest magnitude, and Government ought to have
absolved all parties to allow every one to give the matter the
freest possible consideration. He had at first done his best to
oppose Confederation but he was now friendly to the Union,
and would be glad to see the whole of British North America
united. There were two very important considerations—one
was that there was a great departure from the principles of the
constitution in the matter of the representation. With regard to
the financial aspect, however, he could not but believe that
lasting injury would be done to the country by the expenditure
to be incurred. The cost of the railway could not be less than
$100,000,000, and it was equivalent to the Imperial
Government asking England to embark in an enterprise
involving a thousand millions. Was not the matter, therefore,
sufficiently grave to merit the most serious consideration—and
he entreated the Government to pause. The faith of the country
was pledged by the resolution to complete the railway within
ten years, no matter if the result should be ruin. No verbal
reservations could have effect, the written record alone could
hold, and the words of the resolution were clear, and if in two
years the railway was not commenced, British Columbia could
appeal to the Imperial Government. They had been told that
the expenditure would not burden the people, but could that be
believed, and no one would undertake to say that a Company
would undertake the work as a remunerative scheme, and
therefore sooner or later, the Government would have to pay
every dollar of the expense, and the contractors would want
the land as a profit. No one could suppose that even after the
road was built, it would pay one tenth of its working expenses,
and how, therefore, could British capitalists be expected to
undertake the work.
The Minister of Customs had intimated that if they did not
strike quickly, they would alienate British Columbia from the
enterprise, but was that an element for discussion; no, if such
were the case, the matter belonged to the Imperial Government
only. Was the House ready to involve the country in so large
an increase of debt? That debt was already $100,000,000 and
there were many burdens that would arise from the
Intercolonial and other works. The Union Act had provided for
the extension of the Canal system and that had only been
delayed because of the deficient state of the finances of the
Dominion. The cost of the railway could not be named, it
might be much greater than the amount named and yet coûte
que coûte the country would stand pledged to complete it. He
should oppose the measure because it would impose burdens
on the people that they were not able to bear and would
involve the country in ruin and disaster.
Mr. RYMAL like the previous speaker, had not much faith in
the blessings of Confederation, and should oppose the present
measure, because he believed it violated their constitutional rights.
In the Confederation scheme the principle of representation by
population had been conceded, and yet that principle was now
being violated. The Minister of Militia himself represented many
times the whole number of white men in British Columbia, and
there were many similar cases in the House, and the thing was so
absurd and unjust that if it were the only objection, he would
oppose the scheme for while he asked nothing more than justice, he
would take nothing less.
March 29, 1871 COMMONS DEBATES
295
As to the financial aspect the responsibilities about being
incurred, added to the cost of lntercolonial and the enlargement of
the canals, a debt of $300,000,000, would be incurred, which at five
per cent would involve an annual expenditure of $15,000,000.
Added to this there would be the yearly and ever increasing burden
of maintaining the railway, all of which would fall on the poor tax
payers. To use a well known phrase, he would say "whither are we
drifting," and the only answer was that bankruptcy and ruin stared
them in the face, and the credit and good reputation of Canada
would be a thing of the past. The Minister of Finance had well nigh
ruined the country before, and he would do so again, if the present
Ministry retained their seats, and were led on by the Minister of
Finance. Language failed him to express his detestation of the
Government that thus prejudiced the good interest of the country,
and it appeared to him that the prospects of the Confederation were
being destroyed.
Hon. Mr. DUNKIN said the question proposed was the adoption
of resolutions for the admission of British Columbia into the Union,
and the objection raised in the amendment was a very narrow one.
No sufficient reason was given for the postponement proposed,
which was in effect the adjournment of the whole scheme. He
referred to the circumstances connected with Confederation, and the
feelings with which it was regarded at first, and after its
accomplishment. The experiment was tried, one of its express
objects being to bring in the British North West Territory, and
construct a Railroad from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and were they
now to hesitate, letting
I dare not wait upon I would. He argued that
British Columbia and the North West could not be retained without
a railway. They had already incurred the greater part of the
expenditure, independent of British Columbia, and they must
advance; they could not recede. Without executing the policy these
Resolutions embodies we should expose ourselves, our present
constitution and national position. Not to advance was to go back
the whole distance. He argued that the road could be built to the
Pacific at a cheaper rate than one to the Rocky Mountains only, and
possibly for a smaller amount than to this point.
Mr. BODWELL rose to speak, but was interrupted by cries of
"adjourn."
After a short discussion the debate was adjourned, to be resumed
tomorrow after recess.
The House rose at 12.50 o'clock.
This individual participated in:
