Levi THOMSON

THOMSON, Levi

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Qu'Appelle (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
February 17, 1855
Deceased Date
April 14, 1938
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Thomson
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=4d6aec7f-24f4-4f0f-bfd9-9e401c0c7fc5&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
crown prosecutor, farmer, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Qu'Appelle (Saskatchewan)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Qu'Appelle (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 105)


May 26, 1921

Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :

As a

matter of fact it is theft though, according to the definition of theft in the Code, is it not?

Topic:   S912 COMMONS
Full View Permalink

May 26, 1921

Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :

I think the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka are quite in point, taken in connection with the fact that a great number of these automobile thefts are committed innocently. I do not think we should limit the discretion of a judge to consider favourable circumstances in the case of a boy who goes out for a joy-ride with somebody else's automobile. That is theft undoubtedly, and under this amendment he cannot escape with less than a year's imprisonment. I think the minister would be well advised to reconsider the section.

Topic:   S912 COMMONS
Full View Permalink

May 26, 1921

Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :

If I were satisfied that the minister's interpretation of the law was correct, I would not object to the clause as it stands. I have a distinct recollection of prosecuting in a somewhat similar case under a section placed some time ago in the Criminal Code; perhaps the minister will remember it. I can-

not quote it exactly at the moment, but it refers to the keeping of stray animals. I raised the contention in that case that it was theft. The judge before whom I was acting, and who, I think, was one of the brightest judges we have ever had in Canada, expressed himself as absolutely clear that it was theft and that the man could be prosecuted for theft, notwithstanding that in this other section it is dealt with in another way. This is a repetition of what I have suggested. This judge may be wrong and the minister may be right; but I have grave doubt whether my right hon. friend is right, and, therefore, I do not like the clause as it stands. I believe, that strictly according to law, that boy could be prosecuted under this section, and he must be sentenced for one year unless th6 Crown prosecutor or the Attorney General agrees. I suppose it is likely that where a case is such as I have mentioned, the Crown prosecutor or the Attorney General would agree.

Topic:   S912 COMMONS
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1921

Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):

I am in full sympathy with the minister's desire to provide adequate punishment in these cases, but I still think that his terms are very indefinite. In his explanation of this section it seemed to me he was leaving the impression that feeble mindedness was part of the definition. As a matter of fact it is not feeble mindedness that we are defining; mental defectiveness is the term used. That is just as vague as the other terms we are referring to. As I said before, we all require "care, consideration and control." I am not sure that we are not all more or less mentally defective.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1921

Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :

We might assume that those people for whom my hon. friend has so much sympathy should have some responsibility placed upon them before they undertake to get into trouble. But there is another point in connection with this section that bothers me somewhat. A feeble-minded person is described as one who is not necessarily an imbecile, but whose mental defectiveness is so pronounced that she requires care, supervision, and control for her own protection, and for the protection of others. It seems to me that my hon. friend has not been very guarded in the terms he uses. Is there in the criminal law of any other country whatever a section of this description? It seems to me that the words my hon. friend uses there are capable of various interpretations by different judges; I doubt very much whether any two judges would give the same interpretation. I think you might almost assume that almost any of these women are persons who require care, supervision and control. I think it is probably because they have not had the amount of care, supervision and control that they should have had that they have gone astray. Perhaps there are

not so many of us that have had the care, supervision and control that we should have had.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink