The desire to preserve Ontario’s intrastate preponderant potential or safeguard its future dominance also led Ontario Liberals to object to the terms of union for both Manitoba in 1870 and British Columbia in 1871. Each of these new provinces negotiated terms of union that were much more generous than those enjoyed by Ontario. Manitoba had a population of twelve thousand in 1871. According to the ‘rep by pop’ ratio that determined
the number of ridings in each province, Manitoba was entitled to less than one seat in the House of Commons. The Provisional Government’s ‘list of rights’ requested two
parliamentary seats in 1870. Instead, the ‘postage-stamp province’ received four seats in the House of Commons and two Senators. When pressed about this increase, Macdonald replied that “it would be hopeless to expect that free-men would consent to be united to Canada without a representation in the Canadian Parliament being provided for.” One or two MPs, he
implied, did not satisfy this necessity.186 To ensure that the province of Manitoba could tend
to its jurisdictional responsibilities, the Canadian government also took the unprecedented step of deviating from precedent and included an estimate of the province’s native population when calculating its financial terms. Manitoba received the same eighty-cent per capita subsidy as the other provinces, but it was calculated on the inflated assumption that Manitoba contained 17,000 people. It also received a $30,000 annual grant. In addition, because it had no debt, the new province received annual interest payments of $23,604 from the dominion. In total, Manitoba received $5.50 per capita from the dominion government (see Table 2). The dominion government accepted these terms to restore its relations with the Red River region while the Provisional Government still controlled Red River in the spring of 1870. These measures would also increase the Conservative’s popularity in Manitoba at the next election.187
186 Canada. House of Commons Debates. May 2, 1870, 1327.
Table 2: Annual Monies Per-Capita Paid to the Provinces by the Dominion in 1871 Province $ / Capita Ontario 0.64 Quebec 0.67 Nova Scotia 1.21 New Brunswick 1.20 Manitoba 5.50 British Columbia 6.33*
*This figure is approximate, British Columbia additional funds from the dominion government, including a loan for dock construction at Esquimalt.
Table adapted from Maxwell, Federal Subsidies to the Provincial Governments in
Canada, 34, 39-40.
The Pacific colony of British Columbia was in dire financial straits by 1870. The population boom that accompanied its 1858 gold rush led it to borrow heavily to finance the construction of roads in the colony’s interior. After the gold rush ended, a population exodus left the colony’s government struggling to finance the debt. By 1870 the population of 36,247 (including 8,576 persons of British descent, 1,548 emigrants from Asia, and 25,616 Indigenous persons) shouldered a government debt of over $1 million. The colonial
government had to devote one quarter of its tax revenues to servicing the debt. After several
years of debate, the colony decided to seek terms of union with Canada.188 Because
Macdonald took ill at the end of the discussions with the Red River representatives and just prior to the arrival of the British Columbian delegates in June 1870, Cartier led this second set of negotiations. American interest in the colony led Cartier to offer the delegates
generous terms to ensure Canadian access to the Pacific Ocean. The most notable part of the dominion’s offer was the construction of a transcontinental railway. The British Columbian delegates recognized the necessity of connecting their colony to Canada but only requested a wagon road. Cartier, however, convinced the delegates to ask for a railway. The dominion government agreed to commence the construction of a transcontinental railway from the Pacific Ocean to Lake Nippissing within two years and complete it within ten years of the date of union. The other financial terms were based on the assumption that British Columbia contained 60,000 people. By stretching this already exaggerated population estimate, the
188 Jean Barman, The West Beyond the West: A History of British Columbia 2 ed. (Toronto: University of
Canadian government justified giving British Columbia six seats in the House of Commons and three in the Senate. This final population estimate also entitled the Pacific province to a $48,000 annual subsidy, annual interest payments of $33,000, and an annual grant of $35,000 a year from the dominion. In spite of this generosity, British Columbia still required an additional $100,000 a year to balance its books (see Table 2). Thus, Cartier offered an additional twenty-year $100,000 annual subsidy to reimburse British Columbia for lands it surrendered to the dominion to help pay for the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). According to Maxwell, this valuation of the public land was “entirely arbitrary,” but it provided the
Canadian government the necessary excuse to make up British Columbia’s deficit.189
Ontario Liberals, and even a few Conservatives, complained that these terms violated the precedents established during the Confederation negotiations of 1864 to 1867. They protested against the overrepresentation of both provinces because they worried that it
endangered Ontario’s parliamentary preponderance. In May 1870, the Intelligencer broke
ranks with Macdonald and criticized Manitoba’s representation. Although it was willing to accept a temporary shift from strict representation by population, it considered four ridings to be unjustified and called upon Ontario’s representatives to demand changes to the
government bill.190 Other Ontarians were less descript but nevertheless objected to the
violation of the ‘rep by pop’ principle. David Mills argued that dividing Manitoba into four ridings was “unfair” to the rest of Canada. Instead of over-representing Manitoba in
anticipation of its population’s expansion, he recommended maintaining the principle of
representation by population and making adjustments in between the decennial censes.191
Robert Harrison complained that the terms exceeded the representation requested in the
Provisional Government’s list of rights.192
Ontarians, according to Liberal supporters, could not afford to allow a second French- Catholic province to erode their intrastate preponderance. This concern was not unfounded. Historians note a desire among many leading Quebecers for Manitoba to become a large and
189 Maxwell, Federal Subsidies to the Provincial Governments in Canada, 38-41; Sweeny, George-Etienne
Cartier, 226; Gwyn, Nation Maker, 138.
190Intelligencer, 5 May 1870.
191 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 7 May 1870, 1426. 192Ibid, 1423. See also: Advertiser, 9 May 1870.
populous French-Catholic province that would ally with Quebec in the House of Commons
against Ontario.193 They have not, however, explored how these concerns shaped the
responses of Ontario Liberals. They demanded, for example, the expansion of Manitoba’s borders to encompass Portage La Prairie, a predominantly English-Protestant settlement that
Macdonald initially excluded from the province. Its inclusion, the Advertiser hoped, would
help to prevent the new province from becoming “another non-progressive, jealous, narrow-
minded Quebec.”194 Although Macdonald gave into this pressure, Ontario Liberals were still
unsatisfied. When parliament passed the Manitoba Act, the Advertiser complained that “the
door-way and hall leading into the North West has been converted into a French preserve. As far as legislation could do so, the foundations have been laid for another Province of
Quebec, with all its bigotry, exclusiveness, and jealousy of free thought and progress.”195
The following year, Colonel Denison perpetuated this sentiment while speaking in Toronto. He acknowledged Quebec’s “legitimate influence in Quebec and in the Dominion,” but
condemned its alleged attempts to “rule Manitoba, and rule the Dominion.”196 Ontarians had
anticipated expanding into the North-West and they believed that they could not afford to have their preponderant influence compromised by the growth of a second French-Canadian province. They expected to impose their interests and cultures onto the North-West and thereby expand the power and influence of their society.
Ontario Liberal MPs and their supporting newspapers also opposed the
overrepresentation of British Columbia in 1871. The concern was an Ontarian fixation. Only a handful of other MPs, including Alexander Galt and John Gray (the Conservative MP for the City and County of Saint John), commented on the two provinces’ over-representation
during the parliamentary debate.197 Ontarians recognized that their concern was unique. The
deviation from the principle of representation by population was, the Globe declared in two
193 Silver, The French-Canadian Idea of Confederation, 82-83; A.I. Silver, "French Canada and the Prairie
Frontier, 1870-1890,” Canadian Historical Review 50, no. 1 (1969); Creighton, John A. Macdonald: The Old Chieftain, 64; Sweeny, George-Etienne Cartier, 201; Oscar Douglas Skelton, Life and Letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Volume 1 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1921), 193.
194Advertiser, 4 May 1870; Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 2 May 1870, 1312, 1320-1322. 195Advertiser, 12 May 1870.
196Globe, 1 March 1871. Ibid, 20 February and 3 October 1871 also hint at this argument. Although Denison
was known for his conservative values he unsuccessfully ran the Liberal candidate for Algoma in 1872. Norman Knowles, “Denison, George Taylor,” DCB (online edition).
editorials on 20 February, “especially offensive to the people of Ontario” who entered Confederation expecting ‘rep by pop’ to free them from “Lower Canadian domination” and to give them “a fair share” of influence “in the management of the affairs of the United
Provinces.”198 To protest this policy, Ebenezer Bodwell moved an amendment declaring
British Columbia’s proposed representation to be “enormously in excess of the proper number according to population.” This deviation constituted a “violation of the fundamental principle of the pact between the Provinces” that “ought not to be disturbed without the assent of the Provinces.” Parliament rejected his amendment by a partisan vote of 58 to 87.199
Ontario Liberals and their supporters defended the principle of ‘rep by pop’ in 1871 because they worried that the affirmation of the Manitoban precedent would erode Ontario’s
intrastate influence. At the end of March, the Globe and the Advertiser published editorials
objecting to the new province’s overrepresentation. They opposed the inclusion of British Columbia’s Native and Chinese populations to increase British Columbia’s seat-count. Such inclusion had “been deliberately rejected” in the past. All of the provinces had to be treated equally. If the West’s representation included its Native and Chinese populations, then
Ontario was entitled to additional ridings.200 The dominion government, the Globe warned,
could use the Manitoban and British Columbian precedents “for granting representation in excess of that agreement to a dozen new Manitobas and British Columbias [sic] carved out of
the great North-West.”201 The Advertiser was equally adamant. “If this principle is not
jealously guarded by Ontario,” it warned on 29 March, “we may lose the chief advantage
sought by the Act of Confederation.”202 The London Liberal organ elaborated on this
warning the following day:
If in the case of one province we interfere with the principle of representation by population so long struggled for, there will be no excuse for not doing the very same thing in the case of other provinces; and we [Ontario] should thus
198Globe, 20 February 1871.
199 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 31 March 1871, 312-131; Canada, House of Commons, Journals, 31
March 1871, 190-192.
200Globe, 30 March 1871; Advertiser, 30 March 1871. See also: Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 28
March 1871, 282.
201Globe, 30 March 1871. 202Advertiser, 29 March 1871.
fall back into that very same unpleasant and injurious condition under which
we laboured in the old Legislative union of Upper and Lower Canada.203
The Liberals’ concern about the new provinces’ overrepresentation did not abate. When Edward Blake addressed his riding of West Durham at end of April, he noted that it
contained two to three times more white inhabitants than British Columbia and complained
that it only received one representative compared to the Pacific province’s six seats.204 If
Ontarians expected their province to protect themselves from the rest of Canada and
influence the national government they had to oppose reinforcing the Manitoban precedent in British Columbia.
In addition to the threat that the new provinces allegedly posed to Ontario’s
parliamentary preponderance, Ontario Liberal MPs and their newspaper organs also opposed British Columbia’s terms of union because they believed that the financial aspects of the agreement were unfair. Thomas Oliver complained that the dominion assumed ten times as
much debt per capita for British Columbia as it had for Ontario and Quebec.205 They also
objected to the government’s transcontinental railway construction timetable. Having already promised to construct the Intercolonial railway (which Upper Canadians had traditionally avoided due to the heavy cost they would bear), Ontario Liberals opposed committing to the dominion government’s ambitious and expensive schedule. The
Advertiser opined that “we have saddled ourselves already with an unknown total for the Intercolonial Railway… it behoves the people of Canada – and especially of Ontario, who will have chiefly to bear the burden – to pause and count the cost before giving new
guarantees” to British Columbia.206 Alexander Mackenzie anticipated that the railway would
cost “six to seven times” as much as the Intercolonial and therefore moved an amendment
that limited construction to that which “the state of finances will justify.”207 Edward Blake
was also outraged by the government’s extravagant promise.208 It was wrong, these Liberals
concluded, for Ontarian taxpayers to bear these financial burdens against their will.
203Ibid, 30 March 1871.
204Globe, 28 April 1871. Cartwright, Reminiscences, 95 expressed similar concerns. 205 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 30 March 1871, 300.
206Advertiser, 29 March 1871.
207 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 28 March 1871, 282. 208 Schull, Edward Blake: The Man of the Other Way, 88-93.
When justifying their support for the terms of union, Ontario Coalition MPs and their supporters tried to assuage concerns in their province concerning the deviations from ‘rep by pop.’ The prime minister’s parliamentary majority may have allowed him to privately brag
that he could “pretty much [do] as I please,” but his supporters felt differently.209 They
knew, for example, that Ontario voters expected explanations for the overrepresentation of the new provinces in the House of Commons. Some Ontarians, such as George Jackson, struggled to justify the temporary overrepresentation of British Columbia. On this occasion the man who boldly espoused the imperative of Ontarian support for compromise in 1865
only vaguely asserted that six representatives for British Columbia was “common sense.”210
Most Coalition supporters recognized that they needed to explicitly address the Liberals’
objections. The Leader claimed that the articles concerning representation by population in
the Quebec Resolutions and the BNA Act only applied to the original four provinces and therefore had “no more reference to the Red River country than to Patagonia or Terra Del
Fuego.”211 During the 1871 parliamentary debate, William McDougall argued that the
Manitoba Act “had been passed under peculiar circumstances,” and therefore did not set a precedent that could be used to justify the violation of representation by population for British Columbia. He nevertheless accepted the new province’s overrepresentation because he expected British Columbia’s population to surge after it entered Confederation. “The
evil,” McDougall concluded, “would be temporary.”212 While speaking to his own riding in
July, John Hillyard Cameron also downplayed the significance of Manitoba’s
overrepresentation: “the Province had just four members in the House of Commons, and yet we were told that that was too many!” Confederation needed Manitoba and British Columbia, and temporary overrepresentation was an acceptable cost. By contending that Ontario’s preponderance was not threatened by these exceptions, Coalitionists appealed to Ontarian
voters to support the party that focused on national interests.213
209 JAM to Rose, 25 March 1870, in Confederation Documents Hitherto Unpublished, 132. 210 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 29 March 1871, 293; Ibid, 5 May 1870, 1423. 211Leader, 7 May 1870.
212 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 30 March 1871, 304. Parliamentarians from other provinces echoed
this argument: Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 29 March 1871, 290-291.
Conservatives rarely assessed Ontario’s interests when discussing the financial terms of union for Manitoba and British Columbia. They denied that the terms were unfavourable to Canada and instead emphasized the imperative and benefits of constructing a
transcontinental nation. “It was absurd,” the Leader argued in May 1870, to expect Manitoba
to find the financial resources to support its own development like the larger provinces. “Exceptional concessions” were necessary if Canadians expected it to develop into a province capable of paying for its own governance. Despite this appeal for generosity, the
Leader still felt the need to claim that Manitoba’s terms of union were “as equitable as any
bill could be.”214 A similar pattern emerged in 1871. As many historians note, the
transcontinental railway was a key component of the Canadian government’s nation-building vision. Ontario Conservatives voted for this bold endeavour but struggled to explain why Ontarians should support the expensive project. Jackson suggested that the construction of
the intercontinental railway would improve Canada’s standing with “English capitalists.”215
James Grant, the Conservative MP for Russell, expected Vancouver to become a major shipping port with Asia. The affluent empires of Persia, Rome, and Britain had each
prospered while they “controlled the trade of the East.” All of Canada, including Ontario, he concluded, would profit from this trade. Canada’s long-term interests lay in facilitating a
strong and prosperous British Columbia.216 The Leader was more direct when discussing
Ontario’s interests in a transcontinental railway:
The railway is a matter of fifty times as much interest to Ontario and the Dominion at large as it is to British Columbia. Were British Columbia never to come into the Confederation, a railway, first to Fort Garry, and then on through the fertile valley of the Saskatchewan to the Rocky Mountains, would be an absolute necessity if we have any serious notion of populating those distant regions within reasonable time…. The actual cost which the railway
will incur will be small compared with the advantages to be derived form it.217
214Leader, 7 May 1870. Maxwell, Federal Subsidies to the Provincial Governments in Canada, 34-35 agrees
with this assessment.
215 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 29 March 1871, 293 216Ibid, 28 March 1871, 283.
Even this exposition retained a vague quality. Why and how western settlement would benefit Ontario was common sense and unstated. Ontario Conservatives still struggled to link their province’s interests to the Canadian government’s policies.
Those who opposed the terms of union for Manitoba and British Columbia were, according to Ontario Conservative MPs and their supporters, unpatriotic opportunists who endangered Confederation by using sectional narrow-mindedness to gain popularity in their
own province. Such pretences imperilled Confederation. The Intelligencer claimed that
Ontario Liberals opposed British Columbia’s terms of union to increase their popularity even though they knew it could have driven the Pacific colony and the North-West to seek
annexation to the United States.218 Ontarians had to be flexible. It was “impossible,” the