March 11, 1910

CON

George Halsey Perley (Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PERLEY.

All these canals are the property of the state. Article 100 of the constitution of the state of New York provides as follows: .

The legislature shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the Erie canal, the Oswego canal the Champlain canal the Cayuga and Seneca -canals or the Black River canal, but they shall remain the property of the state and under its management for ever.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink
CON

Andrew Broder

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. BRODER.

There are some private owned canals as well?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink
CON

George Halsey Perley (Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PERLEY.

There may be; I am referring only to those owned by the state. I may say that I am not going to find any fault with the government on this subject, I am not asking an answer, I am simply putting on record what I understand to be the exact state of affairs today. It has been my impression for the last thirty-five years that we could not send a Canadian boat through to New York and evidently the Minister of Justice thinks that that is at present the state of affairs, because in his answer of February 24, he says, speaking of the efforts of the United States:

The government is not aware that such urgency has up to the present time been productive of any practical result.

That is in the way of the state of New York agreeing that we should use their canals.

As the superintendent of public works of the state of New York has this matter entirely in charge, and must be cognizant of all the facts concerning it, I wrote him last month, and this is his reply:

State of New York,

Superintendent of Public Works, Albany.

February 16, 1910.

Subject: Discrimination as to boats.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink
?

Mr. G@

Perley,

House of Commons,

Ottawa, Canada.

Dear Sir,-Answering your letter of the 9th instant, addressed to the superintendent of Public Works, I beg to say that there has never been any discrimination either by the rules for the management of the canals, or by statute, against Canadian owned boats, nor is there at the present time.

Section 172 of chapter 13, laws of 1909, known as the Canal Law, prescribes rules for the registration of canal boats. This section, after providing that the owner of boats navigating the canals shall deliver to properly designated officials a certificate of registry, containing the name of the owner, his residence, name of the boat and the hailing point, provides that such registry shall be signed by the owner, if a resident of this state; if not, by the master of the boat as the owner thereof.

Yours very truly,

WINSLOW M. MEAD, Deputy Supt. Public Works.

My object in rising is that I think it is only fair that this evidence and correspondence should be made public in this way, because I believe that if the impression which every one in this section of Canada has had for a great many years that the state of New York does not allow Canadian boats to use the New York canal is a wrong impression, we should disabuse the public mind of it. As I read this correspondence and evidence particularly this i65a

letter from the deputy superintendent of public works, unless there is some other evidence to be found of which I know nothing, it seems to me absolutely that the state of New York allows us to use the canals of that state on an equality with the inhabitants of the United States if we wish to do so. If the Minister of Justice finds anything to be said on the other side, and his department thinks that we have not the right to use these canals, I wish he would inform the House of that fact.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink
LIB

Allen Bristol Aylesworth (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).

If I say anything with regard to this subject it is not that I think that I can enlighten the hon. gentleman or this House with reference to the very important question he has brought up. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Perley) who is a keen and acute business man, with the investigation he has made into this subject knows more about it than I do, probably more than any Canadian lawyer, and I have no idea that I can add to his knowledge by anything I can say. I should explain that the circumstance that I made the answer to the question which my hon. friend put upon the order paper some days ago, was merely an accident. Some one had to answer it, and the First Minister asked me to do so. The subject is one not depending in any way upon Canadian legislation, it is not a question of the interpretation of any Canadian statute or Canadian regulations. So far as I am aware, so far as I have ever heard, there is no treaty existing between the United States and Great Britain which would cover this matter except the treaty of Washington, and in making the answer the other day to the question propounded I simply referred to that treaty and stated the substance of its provisions with regard to this matter. I take it that the only way in which the question can be practically determined would be by diplomatic representations to the United States government, and through the federal government to that of the state of New York; or possibly by proceedings before the courts of that state if the right to use the canals on the part of a Canadian vessel was challenged or refused. It would necessarily be a matter in regard to which the only person competent to give advice which would be of any value would be some one acquainted thoroughly with the statutes of the state of New York on the subject, some local practitioner whose opinion would be of value in regard to their legislation, and the regulations under which their canals may be used. No one in this country would I think be competent, to do so. I can only say with reference to the whole subject, and especially to the points which my hon. friend has called attention to, that I shall examine with great interest what

he has said when it appears in ' Hansard, and that if there is anything which can be accomplished toward the end which no doubt he desires, by correspondence, diplomatically or otherwise, I am sure that I should be only too happy, and that any other member of the government would be only too well pleased to facilitate the objects which the hon. gentleman has in view.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink
CON

Andrew Broder

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BBODEB.

As a matter of fact, I believe it is without dispute that for the last forty years no Canadian vessel has any privilege of going and coming through these canals. When the Washington treaty was negotiated in 1871 the United States federal government went only so far a3 to agree to urge the state to give the Canadians that privilege, but they did not succeed, so that we are just in the position we were in before we made a treaty at all. There are not only state owned canals in the state of New York, but there are privately owned canals, and even if they had acceded to the wishes of the federal government under the treaty, they would still have control of these private canals. I believe that as a matter of fact for forty years Canadian vessels have not frequented these canals. What can you do now? The federal authorities cannot oblige the state of New York to give the use of these canals, all they can do is to urge the 3tate to do it and it will end just where it ended before. It is a very awkward position to be in, but if you look up the protocols of the Washington treaty you will see that all they agreed to do was simply to urge on the state the wisdom of giving us the use of these canals, and the state refused to do it.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFEID LAUEIEE.

I think my hon. friend (Mr. Broder) is right in saying that according to the treaty of Washington the United States authorities undertook to urge upon the state of New York to give to Canadians the use of their canals just as by that treaty the use of the canals of the St. Lawrence was given to American citizens. It is a long time since I have looked into the matter, hut I have a distinct recollection of what took place in this House when my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. John Haggart) and I were young members, and I believe in that discussion it was assumed that the state of New York had actually passed legislation to give to Canadians the use of these canals, but by subsequent regulations applying to the canals, the object of this legislation was practically defeated. There was discrimination against Canadians, and while the legislature of the state of New York gave the use of the canals, it was made nugatory by subsequent regulations. My recollection is, however, vague as to that, but I have sent Mr. AYLESWORTH.

to the library, and I think in a few days I will be able to give exact information.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink
LIB

Frederick William Borden (Minister of Militia and Defence)

Liberal

Mr. E. L. BOBDEN.

That may have been brought about by some arrangement [DOT] of the tolls, but it would seem from the official communication to the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) from the deputy Superintendent of Public Works of the state of New York, that all tolls have been abolished, that no tolls whatever are charged now, and that the canals are as open to the citizens of Canada as to the citizens of the United States. It would be extremely desirable that the matter should be cleared up officially, as it appears to have been pretty well cleared up in the statement received by the hon. member (Mr. Perley) to whom I think a great deal of credit is due in the matter. The official in charge of these canals has informed him in the most unqualified terms that the canals of the state of New York are as open to the citizens of Canada as they are to the citizens of the United States. It is quite true that a contrary impression has prevailed for a long time, but I presume that is due to the fact that thirty-five years ago when we wanted to use these canals we could not use them by reason of the discrimination which undoubtedly did exist, and having got out of the way of using them, and not being aware of the change in the regulations, no one has attempted to use them in recent years. For that reason the real condition of affairs has not been disclosed to the public. I may be entirely wrong in that conjecture, but surely if we can trust official assurances at all it is perfectly plain that the citizens of Canada can use these canals.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. JOHN HAGGAET.

I remember the circumstance perfectly well, and the right hon. gentleman, and the hon. member (Mr. Broder) are perfectly correct in what they say. The treaty of Washington gave us the right to use canals belonging to the United States, and the United States promised they would use their influence to get us the use of the state canals on the same terms as the federal canals. There was a correspondence between this government and the government of the United States in reference to the Sault Ste. Marie canal, which at that time belonged to the state of Michigan, and I think the state of Michigan refused us the right to use that canal on the same terms as citizens of the United States. That difficulty was gotten over by the United States government obtaining possession of the Sault Ste. Marie canal, and it became a federal work. I do not think, however, that the United States federal government used their influence except in reference to the Sault Ste. Marie canal which at that time was the only canal in the United States owned by a state government that we were inter-

ested in the navigation of, except it be the New York canal system on which lumber was carried from Ottawa to New York. After the effort was made by Mr. Murphy and his friends, McRae & Co., to get their barges down to New York, there was no other effort made to obtain the use of the New York canals.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   D. MURPHY.
Permalink

TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.

CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).

On the 17th of February last I obtained information from the Minister of Railways in reference to lands that are alleged to be flooded in connection with the Trent waterways system, and particularly in reference to payments near the village of Hastings. I asked the minister as to payments to certain people, I asked who acted as valuator for the government, and the minister answered James Dickson. I also asked who acted as solicitor for the government in each case, and what amount the solicitor was paid for his services in each case, and the answer is:

L. F. Clarry. Nothing has yet been paid, but his accounts have been approved by the Department of Justice, and will be paid as soon as the money is available, April 1, 1910.

I may refer to Return No. 83 brought down on the 15th of March, 1909, showing the amount paid property owners for damages caused by holding the water in the Otonabee river between Hastings and Peterborough.' These payments amount to some $24,000. The amounts paid out altogether by the government are very considerable, and if I am instructed correctly the conditions under which they are paid are very unfavourable to the interests of the public. In other words, there is reason to believe that the person who is acting on behalf of the government is also, in some instances, and perhaps in many instances, acting in tie interests of the persons who are obtaining payments and upon terms that he will receive compensation in proportion to the amount he obtains from the government, which, of course, is not likely to stimulate him to try and get the best possible bargain on behalf of the government. Now, in this return which has been brought down the names are set forth, and in every case not only is the name of the owner mentioned, but the name of the lawyer as well. The persons to whom the cheques are issued are not the owners of the larid alone, but the owner and the government agent, that is the government lawyer. And when I tell you, Mr. Speaker-and refer to some documents that I will read -when I tell you that not only is the lawyer paid by the government, but that he is paid a commission by the

owner of the land, you can realize why it is arranged that the cheque is not made payable to the owner alone, but is made jointly payable to the owner and to the solicitor. I have read what the government says in reference to Mr. Clarry in their answer: That Mr. Dickson is the valuator and that Mr. Clarry is the solicitor acting on behalf of the government, that his accounts have been passed and that he will be paid by the first of April. I might also add the further information that Mr. Clarry is a defeated Reform candidate in the last Ontario elections, and I add, so that the government may be on the alert in order to right this matter if possible, that it is reported that Mr. Clarry has sold out his practice and is about to move away within a short time. I will read to the House the method by which Mr. Clarry seeks to advance the public interest on behalf of the government. I have here a copy of a letter-I have also the original here, fortunately-and this letter shows the methods by which he seeks to obtain business for himself and to forward the public interest, I presume. This is a sample of the letter which he sends out:

Hastings, Out., February 9, 1909. Mr. Graham, Westwood, Ont.

Dear Sir,-Enclosed you will find retainer which I will ask you to kindly have your brother fill in and sign in your presence. Please then return it with Mr. Dickson.

Mr. Dickson is the valuator:

Please then return it with Mr. Dickson and I will have your brother's claim forwarded to Ottawa without delay. I am glad to advise you that I am having good settlements with nearly all my claims, and I think your brother will be dealt with all right. Have him hang out for 12 or 15 acres, and show where the water flows in the spring, and make the settlement with Mr. Dickson and I will be perfectly satisfied.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) L. F. CLARRY.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the gentleman who is acting on behalf of the government. Then, the retainer is made out in this way:

I, , of the township of

Asphodel, in the county of Peterborough, farmer, do hereby request and authorize L. F. Clarry, Esq., solicitor, of Hastings, Ontario, to make claim on my behalf against the government of Canada for damages to my lands in the township of Asphodel, caused by the flooding of the waters of Rice lake, and I agree to pay the said L. F. Clarry a commission of 20 per cent of all moneys awarded to me as damages aforesaid for his fees and compensation in the matter.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

George Taylor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.

The usual rake

off.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

It goes on to say:

la case no damages are awarded to me, I am to pay nothing.

Dated the 9th day of January, A.D. 1909.

It does not require any great stretch of imagination to know that Mr. Clarry would be reasonably zealous on behalf of the parties claiming damages, and reasonably anxious to make out as large a claim as possible, seeing that his compensation is dependent upon whether he shall get anything and upon how much he shall get.

Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. What is the date of that letter?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

The retainer is dated the 9th January, 1909, and the letter is dated the 9th February, 1909. This retainer is, of course, quite in harmony with the statement of the letter: Have him hang out for 12 or 15 acres.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

Who is Dickson?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

And Mr. Clarry says in this letter: You settle with Mr. Dickson and I will be perfectly satisfied.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

Who is Dickson?

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

Mr. Dickson is the Valuator employed by the government. And so, Sir, we have the solicitor and the valuator going hand in hand and we have the fact- for I am told it is a fact-that although these Grahams had never approached this * gentleman in any shape or form or suggested to him that they had any claim, this letter is sent out by the hand of whom? By the hand of Mr. Dickson, the government valuator, and sent from the solicitor.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

It is a good way to work up claims.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

It is not surprising under these circumstances that it is asserted in that neighbourhood that people are being paid who ought not to be paid, and who have no claim. This is not an isolated case. There are men in that neighbourhood who have bona fide claims and who have not been paid by the government. Mr. Humphreys, whose declaration I will read, is a wealthy farmer living a little way outside of the village of Hastings, a man of excellent reputation and high standing in the neighbourhood, a man who is 69 years of age, and who has been, 1 am sorry to say, a Liberal all his life. He tells' me that this same Mr. Clarry demanded from him 15 per cent on his claim, and told him that unless it was put into his hands and the 15 per cent was paid to him he could not get anything. Whether that is correct or not I do not know; whether the payment of his claim depended on its passing through Mr. Clarry's hands or not I do not know; but I do know that a year ago Mr. Humphreys came down here and advised the department of the position of Mr. LENNOX.

things, and the department promised to look into it, but no result has followed, and Mr. Humphreys' claim has not been paid, and he thinks there ought to be a general inquiry into the whole system of payment in that neighbourhood. Under these circumstances, with a lawyer, so zealous, acting on behalf of the government, a valuator acting in harmony with this lawyer in adjusting these claims, and the lawyer depending for his compensation and the amount of it on having the claims recognized, it is not surprising if we find that claims have been paid that should never have been paid at all. Now, I never saw Mr. Humphreys until I was notified that he wanted to have this matter investigated, and I state from actual knowledge that he is a gentleman that the government will not have much hesitation in believing, and I would be glad if the Minister of Railways would have an investigation in the Public Accounts Committee, and have Mr. Humphreys, Mr. Clarry and Mr. Dickson brought down here. There is no reason why the opposition should always do that sort of thing. I ask the government to institute a new departure in this respect, because the blockers will not then be in the way, and ascertain whether these allegations are true or not. This is Mr. Humphreys' declaration:

County of Northumberland.

To wit:

In tlio matter of lands in the township of Asphodel, in the county of Peterborough, said to be flooded by the damming of the Trent river at Hastings:-

I, Henry Humphries, of the township of Asphodel, in the county of Peterborough, yeoman, do solemnly declare that-

1. I am of the age of sixty-nine years, or thereabouts, and I have always lived in the said township of Asphodel.

2. Ever since I was a schoolboy I have been familiar with history and conditions of the River Trent as it passes through the village of Hastings, and up this river for many miles to the west, and with the history and conditions of the river or stream called the Ouse, emptying into the Trent at its mouth, and up to and beyond the land of G. A. L Humphries, hereinafter mentioned.

3. I am informed and believe that the government of Canada has paid to the following persons the sums hereinafter set forth for lands alleged to be flooded or drowned by reason of the dam maintained by the government on the River Trent, at the said village of Hastings, namely:-John Sayent, for 60 acres, $600; G. A. L. Humphries, for 50 acres, $550; C. M. Birdsall, for .. acres, $550; Charles Faux or Fox, for 80 acres, $720; M. Breckonridge, $380: James Warner, 30 acres, $330; John Breckonridge, jr., for 6 acres, $60; and Thomas Davidson, for 5 acres, $45.

i. Not one of the parties above mentioned has any land whatever drowned or flooded by reason or on account of the dam at Hastings, and I am clearly of opinion that there is no justification whatever for payment of any of the said money.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Permalink

March 11, 1910