Colin David GIBSON

GIBSON, Colin David, Q.C., B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Hamilton--Wentworth (Ontario)
Birth Date
November 2, 1922
Deceased Date
July 3, 2002
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_D._Gibson
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=5c3c223c-753b-4197-81cc-4c8f33d151ec&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
LIB
  Hamilton--Wentworth (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 85)


May 18, 1972

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Because of the excessively crowded conditions in Stoney Creek manpower centre which is in very poor rented premises, could a new manpower centre be built there very shortly?

Topic:   MANPOWER
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CENTRE AT STONEY CREEK
Full View Permalink

May 8, 1972

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I wish to deny the error made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he falsely stated that I asked a planted question on the subject of Canada Day in the House, as quoted in the Hamilton Spectator of Friday, May 5. Actually, the foundation for the question was my own private members' bill which has been filed and has been before parliament since last October. I request-

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. GIBSON-BASIS FOR QUESTION ON CHANGING OF "DOMINION DAY" TO "CANADA DAY"
Full View Permalink

May 4, 1972

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.

As we near July 1, would the government consider changing the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day-

-so that Canadians will have a national holiday, multicultural and bilingual, to symbolize national unity?

Topic:   NATIONAL HOLIDAYS
Subtopic:   SUGGESTED CHANGE FROM "DOMINION DAY" TO "CANADA DAY"
Full View Permalink

May 2, 1972

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister consider bringing down an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that entitlement to vacation pay will no longer be a ground for refusal to pay unemployment insurance benefits?

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Subtopic:   SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ENTITLEMENT TO VACATION PAY AS GROUND FOR REFUSING BENEFITS
Full View Permalink

May 1, 1972

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak briefly on this bill. I was also pleased to listen to the fine speech made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). There are times in one's political life when one feels close to brother members of parliament. This sense of closeness transcends ideologies. The present occasion is an example of that sort of spirit which has arisen in the House because, Mr. Speaker, those who believe in the rule of law cannot oppose these amendments to the Criminal Code.

The bill covers everything that happens to an accused from the time he is arrested until he is convicted and punished. The whole bill is a compromise between humanity, in some parts, and growing severity in others. It shows more humanity in crimes such as common assault where previously a person could be convicted of an indictable offence. It will no longer be possible to treat common assault as an indictable offence. A charge of common assault usually arises when someone loses his

May 1, 1972

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 cool and makes a fool of himself. A man like that will be treated with compassion.

At the same time, the bill deals more severely with assault occasioning bodily harm, the maximum sentence for which is to be increased to five years. Under the code as it is at present, cases involving extreme violence were inadequately dealt with. The maximum sentence of two years was inadequate. I think a better balance has been struck in the law, lesser penalties will be meted out for lesser offences and more severe penalties for more severe offences.

I am glad that it will be possible for one to appeal a conviction for contempt of court. It was manifestly unjust, I think, that previously a judge had the power to convict a criminal or even counsel and that the law did not give either of them the right to appeal. This appeal provision is a major step forward in our law and all will recognize it as modern and humanitarian.

The question of public mischief is dealt with. I agree with the maximum sentence of five years. The offence may also be dealt with on summary conviction. That provision is good. A court can deal with people of low intelligence by way of summary conviction. On the other hand, of course, serious cases can be proceeded with by way of indictment. All in all, I think that justice will be done as it should be done.

There is in the bill a provision that concerns jurors. It overcomes previous weaknesses in the law. Previously, a judge was not empowered to dismiss a juror unless he was satisfied that it was impossible for the juror to continue serving. He might have been suffering a great deal of pain and might not have been discharged. Now it is provided that if in the opinion of the judge there is good reason for the juror not to continue serving, the juror may be discharged and his services dispensed with.

The bill is full of humanitarian reforms. In places it patches the law; in others it makes humane provision with respect to records, whether convictions will be allowed to stand, and whether a conditional discharge will be allowed. The entire subject of the bill will be dealt with in committee. I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which will review these matters in detail.

I cannot refrain from speaking about the wording of section 309, printed at page 18 of the bill, dealing with possession of housebreaking instruments under suspicious circumstances. I will not go into details now, but it seems to me that under this section the court is saddled with three burdens of proof whereas one burden is usually enough. First, there is the overriding burden of proof resting on the Crown, which must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Then an onus is cast on an accused, who must deal with the matter. Then an onus seems to be cast on the Crown. I think these burdens of proof should be spelled out in more detail.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT. 1972 AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL CODE, CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT, NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT, PAROLE ACT AND VISITING FORCES ACT
Full View Permalink