AFTER RECESS
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER moved the reception of the
report of the Committee of the Whole on certain resolutions
respecting the admission of British Columbia into Union with
Canada.
Mr. MACKENZIE said that in the speech of the Hon. Minister
of Militia, the statement had been made that one-third of the land in
British Columbia was fit for agriculture. But it was admitted that
this statement embraced the Island of Vancouver. Now, in dealing
with this question, the Island must not be taken into consideration at
all. From all the evidence he could obtain respecting the main land,
not one-fifth of it was available for settlement by farmers, and the
remaining four-fifths through which the road was likely to run, had
yet to be proved good for mining purposes. It was simply absurd to
put the price of that land at $1 dollar per acre. The Hon. Minister of
Customs, in his speech the other evening, had advocated entering
into an obligation which he could not say the country would be able
to perform. It had been said the other evening over and over again
during the debate, that he (Mr. Mackenzie) had stated that he
regarded the construction of the Pacific Railway as a pressing
political necessity. He denied having made any such a statement.
He would admit, however, that he would be willing to subject the
country to some inconvenience in order to obtain communication
with the Pacific through Canadian territory. He was in favour of
opening up communication immediately through the country lying
between the head of Lake Superior and Red River. From that point
to the Rocky Mountains the way was comparatively easy and quite
clear enough for the use of emigrants passing into the North West
country. On the Pacific slope, there was no doubt that it would be
necessary to expend large sums of money from time to time as the
Financial condition of the Dominion permitted in opening up a
good route to this side of the Rocky Mountains.
But this country should not be bound to construct, within so short
a time, such a gigantic work. The Grand Trunk had never yet paid
one per cent on the capital expended on it, though passing through a
well peopled country and having no scarcity of traffic, yet the hon.
gentlemen opposite wished to lead the House to believe that this
Pacific Railway which was to run for 2,500 miles through an
uninhabited wilderness, would be a paying enterprise. We had
unfortunately 200 mile lying between the head of Lake Superior
and Winnipeg, which was an uninhabitable desert. Now, he would
recommend a cheap narrow gauge railway with steamers on the
smaller lakes, as the proper means of communication with the open
prairie extending west of Fort Garry and through which it would be
unnecessary to construct a road for years to come. He considered
this attempt as one of the most foolish things that could be
imagined—and what was it for? In order to get some 10,000 people
into the Union, they were actually agreeing to pay $10,000 a head
on their account.
Such terms argued either insane recklessness on the part of the
Government and their supporters, or a painful want of patriotism,
which would damage the country and the character of the hon.
Minister of Militia. For thirty years to come it would be
unnecessary to construct the greater portion of this line. The only
part of the road which would need to be constructed immediately
was in British Columbia itself. He would be prepared to consider
that as soon as estimates of the cost, &c., should be submitted to
this House. Holding these views, he moved that all the words after
"that" be omitted, and the following inserted: "having regard to
the vast importance of the questions involved in the said
Resolutions, (including the obligation to construct within ten years
the Pacific Railway, the cost of which is estimated to exceed one
hundred millions of dollars), time should be afforded to the people
and their representatives for consultation before coming to a final
decision; and that the consideration of the said Resolutions should,
therefore, be postponed to the next Session."
Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER said that he had hoped after
the discussion of the last three days all the arguments against this
measure would have been exhausted, and that he would not be
called upon to speak again. But after the remarks just made by the
hon. member for Lambton, he felt called upon to make some reply.
He was willing to give credit to the hon. members who opposed this
measure, for sincerity. He (Hon. Sir George-E. Cartier) was much
surprised, at the line of argument which they had followed. He was
surprised that the member for Larnbton should try to meet such a
great question on the mere ground of cost. He admitted that the
Union was a necessity and that the railway also was a necessity, but
the honorable gentleman objected to be tied down to a specified
time. He objected to being bound to build a line of 2,500 miles in
ten years—but in past years even when the country was new and
with comparatively few resources she had built 2,000 miles in eight
years. Had Canada been ruined by those works, had her agricultural
interests suffered on this account. And in addition to this, Canada
had built the Victoria Bridge at Montreal, itself equal to 500 miles
of railway, and other large bridges in different parts of the country.
Had she suffered from building those works? No.
It was true that the G.T.R. proprietors were not receiving so good
a return as he would like. If the railway was practicable at all, every
one would admit that it could well be built in ten years. If there had
been any complaint it should have been that the time allowed was
too long. When it had been proposed to extend the Customs Laws
of Canada to Manitoba, it had been objected to as unfair, and that
the people of that country were beyond the circle of Canada, and
therefore a delay of three years had been allowed until the countries
could be more effectively joined and connected. Let the member for
Lambton and his friends read their speeches on the North West
question. Then no expense was too great, no haste too much, no
trouble too great, if only the North West could be acquired, but now
they said don't go so fast. He wanted to get hold of the Red River
country at any cost, and now from the very same mouth that had
spoken of the fertility of the North West, they heard the very
opposite. He had then been willing to send any number of men to
obtain possession of the country.
March 31, 1871 COMMONS DEBATES
311
Mr. MACKENZIE had stated his willingness to send any
number of men not to acquire the country, but to establish the
supremacy of law over insurrection.
Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER resumed the comparison of
the expressions of the member for Lambton last year, and this, then
he had stated distinctly that the acquisition of the North West would
be the only way to obtain British Columbia, but now he did not
want the Union.
Mr. MACKENZIE denied this; he was as much in favour of
Union as ever.
Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER said the member for
Lambton had stated distinctly that in swallowing the Quebec
scheme he had made a mistake, and now the great Reformer of
Upper Canada, the representative of everything good, the
representative of the great Party of Progress, said no, we must pull
up, we must stop. The Government were really the Party of
Progress and action, and the member for Lambton, and those who
had followed him would at the next election be taken to task by
their constituents for having in order to make a case against the
Government made the humiliating confession that they had made a
mistake in accepting the scheme of Confederation. The member for
Lambton in his argument had said that between Thunder Bay and
Fort Garry there was no soil and the railway could not be built but
that question could be settled by Parliament hereafter, when the
railway scheme should be submitted.
Hon. Sir GEORGE-E. CARTIER said, suppose the hon.
gentleman undertook an obligation, could he be obliged to fulfil it,
if he should be prevented by unforeseen circumstances. No one
could be compelled to perform an impossibility. The time was too
long, and the objection could only come from an economical
Scotchman, and he would predict that in a very few years the hon.
gentleman would be one of the most ardent supporters of the
railway. He had not been sorry to lose his motion yesterday, and he
was not sincere in his present proposal. That proposal was to entail
a delay of seven months; what object could there be in so doing?
The matter had already been discussed sufficiently, and the time
was now come for settlement, and he would say that without the
prospect of British Columbia, they would never have persuaded a
majority of the House to consent to acquire one inch of the North
West. For the sake of the member for Lambton himself he trusted
his speech would not be well reported, and especially that part in
which he had spoken of the character of the land in most
disadvantageous terms, and yet he said he was in favour of building
a railway as soon as possible. If the land was as described by the
hon. member, why should a railway be built at all? He reiterated 10
years was too long, and as to the mode of building the railway that
would all be submitted to Parliament, and within the next few days
the Government would ask for an appropriation for the preliminary
survey. He maintained that Canada was better able to-day to
undertake the Pacific railway than she had been years ago to
advance fifteen millions to the Grand Trunk. The whole affair of the
hundred millions was a bugbear. There was no such thing as
incurring that debt in a few years—it was an absurdity to make such
a statement.
The policy was purposely to retain the lands of the country in
order to build railways and open ways of communication. Canada
would not have to bear the expenditure alone. British Columbia
would be represented in the House, and would be equally interested
in the work. Speaking of the cost of the railway, he maintained the
gentlemen on the other side had played the parts of old nurses, but
the children on his side of the House were not so easily frightened.
He spoke of the North Pacific, quoting from a statement showing
the whole length to be 2,000 miles, and the entire estimated cost
seventy-six million dollars in greenbacks. lt had been objected that
the estimate for the Canadian Pacific might not be correct. He
admitted that, but the argument worked both ways. The cost might
prove very much below the estimate, and an immense amount of
land was reserved to cover it. He quoted a statement showing the
average cost of railway communication in the United States,
showing 2,600 miles of line in operation, the average cost being, in
the different States, from $25,000 to $33,000 per mile. It was
admitted that there was a large extent of prairie land to be crossed,
and the smaller expenditure necessary there would leave means to
overcome difficulties in other portions. The hon. members opposite
had been sufficiently unpatriotic to represent the country as that it
would never attract immigration, and he quoted from the
proceedings of the House of Representatives of the State of
Minnesota speaking of the Canadian line as practicable, and the
territories of the North West and British Columbia, as fertile, and
the most valuable of the Continent, and yet men in this country, the
leaders of their party, did their utmost to decry their country.
Mr. MACKENZIE denied that he had done anything to decry
the country.
Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER was glad he had given the
hon. member an opportunity to correct himself. He quoted from an
article from an American paper, copied into the
Globe
characterising the Saskatchewan country as most valuable in soil
and minerals, and British Columbia as possessing rich mineral
resources, magnificent climate and fine soil. It was fortunate that
the truth could be ascertained even if it came from opponents. The
Government had stated again and again that they themselves would
not build the railway, but that it would be constructed by
Companies assisted by such subsidies as would not oppress the
people. It was absurd to speak of building a line to the Rocky
Mountains only, a vote could not be obtained for such a purpose,
but when it was proposed to extend the line to the ocean, the
question assumed a very different aspect. Many great works had
been accomplished in England, but what were any compared with
the scheme now proposed, and he could say that already there
was a motion in England to assist the measure, and there would
doubtless be capitalists to take the matter in hand, and
everything was in favor of the successful construction of the
road. The Minister of Justice had telegraphed him to present his
congratulations to his friends on the vote of yesterday.
312 COMMONS DEBATES
March 31, 1871
Mr. BLAKE said the member for Lambton (Mr. Mackenzie)
in his amendment had pointed out the importance of the matter
the grave nature of the burden proposed to be incurred, and
therefore suggested the postponement of the consideration of
the matter, and it was impossible to answer those statements.
Much had been heard that the railway would not cost the
Dominion in cash $100,000,000, but no one attempted to deny
that the railway would cost that amount and where could the
money come from but from the resources of the country. It
might be in lands and it might be in money, but the result was
the same, and the only argument the Minister of Militia had
used was to speak of the American lines and contrast
greenbacks with gold. He complained of the system of alternate
sections not being followed in land grants. The argument
seemed to be that they would not be compelled to perform
impossibilities, but an honest man would fulfil an obligation,
though the result might be bankruptcy. 1f rashly the national
credit and faith were pledged to build that road in ten years, he
said that any one who voted for that obligation with the mental
reservation that they would not be compelled to fulfil the
obligation unless such should be desirable was a base man. The
spirit and the letter of the bond were alike binding, and the
question was most serious.
The Bill was not one that could be repealed but was an
irrevocable determination to build the road in ten years
whatever the hazard, whatever the results, and should they not
seek to communicate with their people before arriving at this
irrevocable determination. It had been urged in order to secure
votes that there was a reserve power of repudiation, but if the
obligation was undertaken, the people would hold themselves
bound by it, and could gentlemen be prepared to meet an
indignant people if they incurred this responsibility without
consulting those they represented, and if the gentlemen did so
act, though they might go back to their people, they would not
come back to that House. The question was whether the debt of
the country should, at a stroke, be doubled, or whether they
should have an opportunity of consulting their people before
taking such a step. They had been urged to haste, but he
maintained that there had been too much haste in bringing
about Confederation already, and he was not anxious to ruin
entirely that portion of the scheme which had been too hastily
consummated. He had not heard what harm could result from
postponement and as to the argument that British Columbia was
hanging in the balance, he would say that while England was
true to herself, the result did not lie with British Columbia, and
therefore time for consideration should not be refused.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY said it was a great advantage to be able to
hear both sides of a question, but he could see no very great
difference in the proposition of the Government and the
amendment proposed. The hon. member for Lambton after his
defeat last night was obliged to adopt the more successful stand
which had been taken by the hon. member for Dundas. There
was no talk about the necessity of this delay from the hon.
gentleman opposite before this evening. It was all very well to
ask for this delay now, but the scheme had been before the
people and had been discussed in the papers for months. The
terms were published in Toronto papers three months ago, and,
in fact, the Union had been talked of ever since the
commencement of the Confederation. In reply to the arguments
of the hon. members opposite, he said that a grant of $10,000
per mile in addition to the land grant would place the
construction of the railway beyond the possibility of a doubt.
There could be no difficulty in disposing of the lands at a fair
price. The fertile belt was spoken of by the American writers
who had visited it, as being of immense extent and of great
fertility. The Northern Pacific railway looked to it for a portion
of their future trade. It was, therefore, in the interest of this
Dominion to construct a road through our own territory to the
Pacific.
Hon. Mr. McDOUGALL (Lanark North) said the House
should not be led away by claptrap speeches from the hon.
gentleman opposite. Let them look at the facts. Here was a
statement of Mr. Hind, an officer appointed by this Government,
who explored the North West, and submitted his report thereon.
This gentleman stated that in the whole of the fertile belt there
were not 40,000,000 acres of available land. Taking a fertile belt
in the Rocky Mountains which was not mentioned in that report,
to contain 10,000,000 acres more, there were but 50,000,000
acres of any commercial or exchangeable value, in the North
West. Where then were the Government lands to come from
after granting large sections to the railway? The experience of
the United States had shown that it was not in the interest of a
country to grant its unsettled lands in large blocks to private
companies. The proposition before the House was to give all the
valuable lands of the North West to a company which was not
yet formed. After the experience of English capitalists on
Canadian railways, it was not likely that capital could be got to
construct this railway. The money must be had in some way
even at the risk of involving the Dominion in ruin. In reply to
the statement of the Hon. Minister of Customs that this question
had been before the public for some time, he would refer the
hon. gentleman to the files of papers in the reading room. If he
would look at them he would see that the country was startled at
the gigantic proportions of this scheme. On the 27th of that
month, the
ipsissima verba of the scheme were presented to this
House, and that was the first time the public had an opportunity
of passing judgment on it. It was only after it was taken up and
discussed in this House the other day, that it might be said to
have been placed before the people. Could the hon. gentleman
then deny that delay should be granted before passing this
measure. It had not been presented to the House in the
constitutional manner and it was only right to give the people an
opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of it.
The amendment was put and lost on the following division: Yeas,
7; nays, 135.
Mr. BODWELL moved in amendment to leave out all the words
after "that" and insert the following: "That the proposed terms of
March 31, 1871 COMMONS DEBATES
313
Union with
British Columbia provide for its representation in the
Senate by three Members, and in the House of Commons by six
Members, while its population is about 10,000, and such
representation in the House of Commons is enormously in excess of
the proper number according to population, and is in violation of
the fundamental principle of the fact between the Provinces, a
principle which ought not to be disturbed without the assent of the
Provinces, and that the said Resolutions be referred back to a
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reducing the number of
representatives of
British Columbia in the House of Commons."
Mr. JONES (Leeds North and Grenville North) said though
both sides deprecated the party considerations, he had never heard a
question made so completely one of party. He did not think the
country was in a position to undertake the expenditure proposed. He
considered the Imperial Government ought to share in the expense
of any scheme for opening up the North West. He maintained that
the country was not suitable for settlement, or the present
population would have been much larger. He objected to the
Indians being taken into account, as they had done but little good to
Canada. He was in favor of the consideration of the matter being
postponed and should vote for the amendment.
Mr. BOLTON in explaining the reference made to him by the
Minister of Customs, said he had not charged him with making
reckless statements, but that while giving him and the Government
every credit for being in earnest in desiring to construct the road, he
thought it very doubtful whether a company would be found to
undertake it.
Mr. MACKENZIE'S amendment was then put, and the
following vote taken: Yeas, 68; nays, 85.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT believe that the Government had been led
into the inconceivable blunder of naming a period for the
construction of the road and the amendment he was about to
propose differed from others in these respects, it did not interfere
with the pledge to commence the railway, and only pledged that
they would use their utmost exertions to go on with the work as fast
as practicable, and it need involve but a very short delay. He moved
that the eleventh paragraph should be amended by inserting the
words "use their utmost exertions" after the word "further."
Mr. KILLAM then moved in amendment to the amendment,
that the words "while its population is about 10,000" be struck out.
Mr. KILLAM'S amendment was rejected on the following
division: Yeas, 43; nays 100.
Mr. BODWELL'S amendment was then put, and the vote
resulted as follows: Yeas, 58; nays, 87.
Mr. BLAKE moved in amendment to leave out all the words
after "that" and insert the following: "The proposed terms of
Union with
British Columbia provide for the payment by the
Dominion to
British Columbia of a yearly sum of $100,000 in
perpetuity (equal to a capital sum of $2,000,000) for the cession of
a tract of waste land on the route of the proposed Pacific Railway to
aid in its construction, while any such land required for that purpose
should be ceded without charge in like manner as the lands of the
Dominion are to be so ceded, and that the said Resolutions be recommitted for the
purpose of amending the same in accordance
with this Revolution."
The amendment was put and the vote was as follows:—Yeas, 59;
nays, 84.
The first, second, and third resolutions were carried.
Hon. Sir GEORGE-É. CARTIER moved that an address,
embodying the said resolutions be presented to Her Majesty and
that a Select Committee, composed of Messrs. Tilley, Morris,
Tupper, Chauveau, Ferguson, Savary, and the mover be appointed
to draft such address—Carried.
The Committee presented the draft address, which was received
and read a first time, to be read a second time, at the next Session of
the House.
The House adjourned at 1.45 am.
This individual participated in:
