I will take the hint. Bills such as the one before the house today lead us nowhere. Ideas such as this are stale and out of context, and discussion of them is a senseless waste of time. The taxpayers are not paying us to deal with a bill which will never get through and which was never intended to get through, such as the one before us today. I therefore wish to express my sincere desire that this measure be defeated as a verbose and badly phrased mixture of words and phrases which would only create complete chaos. There is an old saying that an Englishman's home is his castle. It is certainly true that an Englishman's home is his home, whether it be a rented apartment, a trailer, a house, a tent or hotel room. In each case the occupant is given some protection by the Criminal Code, and the only result of the passing of this bill would be to restrict those rights and freedoms which are so precious to us all.
So let us reject this bill and, once again, resist the trend to cut down the individual's right to be protected from trespass in the just society. Let us guard against relaxing the law of trespass, a word which has changing meanings from generation to generation. With
eavesdropping devices mushrooming in our technological age should we not consider a wider definition of trespass to include unwarranted invasion of privacy? We cannot discuss this fully today in the context of this debate but I feel we should be constantly on our guard to protect the individual's right to justice in a free society.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit a personal note. My father was a cabinet minister in the King and St. Laurent governments from 1940 to 1949.
Subtopic: PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY