April 13, 1915

KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.

RELEASE OF THOMAS RILEY.


On the Orders of the Day being called-


LIB

William Cameron Edwards

Liberal

Mr. EDWARDS:

Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) if his attention has been called to an item which appears in Saturday's Free Press, and which is also referred to in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, in regard to the release of one Thomas Riley from Kingston Penitentiary. It is reported in both articles that there were two Rileys in that institution and that the one who was sentenced about a year ago to fifteen years for manslaughter was by mistake released for the other Riley. If this is true it certainly reflects very strongly on the administration or management of that institution. I would ask the minister if his attention has been called to this fact.

Topic:   KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
Subtopic:   RELEASE OF THOMAS RILEY.
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

My attention was

brought to the fact. What happened was this: an application was made on behalf of Thomas Riley, convicted of manslaughter in April, 1913, and sentenced to seven years. After consideration of the case a recommendation was made and was acted upon by His Royal Highness the Governor General approving an order for the release of this man, whose offence was, as I have stated, with all the circumstances on the face of it. Unfortunately there was in the same penitentiary another Thomas Riley who had been sentenced likewise for manslaughter in April,

1914, and. who had been sentenced to"fifteen years. I should say that the one difference between the two men, and this is where the very unfortunate error occurred, was that the man who had been sentenced to fifteen years had a middle initial in his name; his name was Thomas M. Riley. When the. order went from the Secretary of State's Department to the warden it contained no information in regard to the individual, but described him as Thomas M. Riley. Thomas M. Riley was, upon that order, discharged, although the recommendation approved by His Royal Highness was for the discharge of the other man. The "M" got slipped into the papers because of a report that was on the files on the question of the deportability of the fifteen-year man. The incident is, of course, most regrettable. What it makes most clear is that in the communication of these orders more care should be taken to give not only the man's name, but every circumstance surrounding him so as to make a mistake of identity impossible. I 'do not know that it is going to help things to direct public attention to it, but I may inform the House that steps are being taken to re-arrest and return to the penitentiary the man for whose discharge no order of His Royal Highness was issued and who, through this unfortunate combination of circumstances, in effect escaped from the penitentiary. We have initiated steps to remedy the mistake that occurred.

Topic:   KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
Subtopic:   RELEASE OF THOMAS RILEY.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Are you going to ask for extradition?

Topic:   KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
Subtopic:   RELEASE OF THOMAS RILEY.
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

I have given instructions that the matter be taken up from that point of view.

Topic:   KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
Subtopic:   RELEASE OF THOMAS RILEY.
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

I presume the minister is going to let out the right man?

Topic:   KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
Subtopic:   RELEASE OF THOMAS RILEY.
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

That is not at all an unnatural presumption. [DOT] Most assuredly there is a proper order for the discharge of that man, and the proper action would be to discharge him. The mere fact that the message unfortunately did not convey the correct information should not prejudice the man whose discharge was ordered.

Topic:   KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
Subtopic:   RELEASE OF THOMAS RILEY.
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.

REPORT OF MR. FERGUSON.


On the Order of the Day being called:


LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

There was a report laid on the table of the House two or three days ago of an investigation conducted by Mr. Ferguson, who, it appears,

has been entrusted by the Government to make an investigation into certain matters under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. The report is very voluminous. When I commenced to read it I found that there was no reference to the powers of Mr. Ferguson o Tthe nature of the duties which were assigned to him. The Order in Council which appointed him has not been brought down. Will the Government have it brought down immediately? [DOT]

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
Subtopic:   REPORT OF MR. FERGUSON.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

When was the document laid on the table of the House?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER- A couple of days ago.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
Subtopic:   REPORT OF MR. FERGUSON.
Permalink

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.


On the Orders of the Day being called:


CON

Samuel Francis Glass

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. S. F. GLASS (Middlesex):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a matter of privilege. I am sorry that the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is not in his seat this morning, because I desire to direct the attention of the House to some remarks he is reported to have made on Saturday last in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. There is an article in the London Advertiser of vester-day headed, " Appeal for Blood-suckers," and containing the report of a speech delivered by the hon. member for West Lamb-ton. Speaking at a Liberal convention held in the city of London last Saturday, to nominate a candidate for the Dominion House, he said:

Then along- comes the Finance Minister, White, a very practical farmer is Mr. White, having come direct from an office in Toronto, and he says to you farmers: " Pay a little more, have a little more patriotism and a little more production and pay more blood money in order that the suckers may be kept going."

Then of this 5 per cent. The Tories have been shouting " Royalty." They always have. They have the only Simon pure brand of loyalty concealed about them. The Grits are disloyal. They want annexation. They are not British subjects.

The Tories did not oppose reciprocity on economic grounds-they couldn't,

so they came to you farmers and said that while reciprocity would give you bigger markets and better prices you should not vote for it because if it carried it would weaken the bonds of the Empire and Canada would become annexed to the United States.

They waved the flag. They called themselves the paragon of loyalty and called on Ontario to look at them. Ontario did look and it must have been through a magnifying glass for we were left with a shattered 13. However, I have no fault to find. It was foolish but every man's destiny is his own. Ontario was afraid of the bugbear of loyalty.

How loyal are the Tories of to-day?

What do the Conservatives say? Do they show consistency? Their arguments of loyalty don't go. The arguments that they are Tories from the ground up are aocepted. They called on the British-born not to support the Liberal party because it was disloyal and would not support the British Empire. What will the British-born do now?

Last week I heard your present representative, S. F. Glass, endeavouring to justify the seven and a half per cent increase. He said: " If it wasn't for this row would we satisfy the manufacturers?" (Laughter.) In that one short sentence the whole trend of the policy of the Tories is shown. It is " fatten up the manufacturers and don't worry about the farmer. He will come."

If my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) were in the House now, I should like to ask him if he has been correctly reported; and judging from the construction of the sentences, I rather believe he has not. But I do want to say that every word in that statement, from beginning to end, both in its sentiment and its construction, is absolutely false, and Hansard will show that I was not properly quoted. The object no doubt was to prejudice me before the farmers who were present. I take this opportunity, if the hon. gentleman is reported correctly, to say that the statements he made are absolutely false and without a tittle of foundation.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

With reference to the

practice which seems to be somewhat prevalent of late, of reading newspaper articles in the House as a question of privilege, I wish to say that it is not a question of privilege, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be properly regarded as privilege. All the same, it is the right of an hon. member to refer to such statements and to contradict them.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink

WAR SUPPLIES.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH MANUFACTURERS.

April 13, 1915