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 84 of 85)


October 15, 1968

Mr. Gibson:

Mr. Speaker, this is the only forum I have. As a young member, I hesitate to try to speak on important legislation such as the agrarian acts, the farm acts. I know very little about these subjects, and I do not mind admitting it. I have been advised by

Government Administration

other hon. members, with more experience than I have that the private members hour is the best place to express views, and to attempt to gain experience in thinking out and planning so as to conform with the rules of debate. That is the main reason I have taken part in the debate, although I am extremely interested in this topic.

The suggestion I made last week was not to abolish private members bills, but rather that there be a more effective way of using this hour for the discussion of controversial topics, having six speeches of ten minutes each. I think we would all find it more interesting and exciting; the press would enjoy it, and the public would find it more provocative.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR BETTER ACCESS TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
Full View Permalink

October 15, 1968

Mr. Gibson:

I mean that seriously, sir. I conclude by commending the hon. member for a forward looking idea, but I submit that the method proposed is not the best.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR BETTER ACCESS TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
Full View Permalink

October 10, 1968

Mr. Gibson:

In the days when trespass is not an uncommon invasion of a citizen's rights, it is utterly unthinkable that such a garbled and incoherent amendment should be permitted to slip into the Criminal Code. The idea behind the bill is in the wrong context altogether and the bill itself is self-defeating.

October 10, 1968

It infringes on the employees' rights to have assistance from their own employer. Perhaps the bill itself is an example of the futility of careless words.

If this house were permitted during the private members' hour to spend one hour a week hearing speeches by six members of parliament lasting a maximum of ten minutes each on controversial subjects, I respectfully submit that a great deal of time would be saved, time which is now wasted, and that a more interesting debate would result. I suggest that rather than discuss bills of this nature in every private members' hour it would be better to allow more latitude for the discussion of current topics such as bilingualism and national unity, the procedural advancement of parliament from the outdated shackles of the past, or the thought behind the legislation which was under consideration earlier. If we were to proceed in this way I suggest that private members' hour would be far more interesting to hon. members and to the public and that the attendance in this house would increase.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Full View Permalink

October 10, 1968

Mr. Gibson:

I hope you will permit me to say how proud I am to follow in his footsteps in this parliament.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Full View Permalink

October 10, 1968

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Wenlworih):

Mr. Speaker, as a new member rising for the first time in the house may I congratulate you sincerely on your appointment as permanent Speaker. It is obvious that Your Honour is especially well qualified for such a great task. I also congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker on his appointment and compliment him for the fine manner in which he is carrying out his new responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to extend to you as well as to the Chairman of the committee of the whole my sincere congratulations.

The bill before the house today presents many problems. I suggest it creates more problems than it solves. In my opinion its effect would be to create confusion in a clear and concise section of the Criminal Code. The bill before the house seeks to amend section 41 of the code. Section 41, subsection 1, reads as follows:

Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Subsection 2 reads:

A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

The amendment reads as follows:

(3) Except where a landlord would be therein justified under a covenant with a tenant for quiet enjoyment, nothing in this section shall be deemed

October 10, 1968

Criminal Code

to justify an employer in using force to prevent any person from having ingress to, regress over, or egress from a dwelling house or real property in or upon which the employer houses an employee or to remove any person therefrom.

In the first place, the pith and substance of section 41 of the Criminal Code is protection from trespassers and control of trespassers by any person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or by any person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority. In short, the code provides an extension of normal rights to those against whom a trespass is committed. It extends the law of assault to include a trespasser who resists eviction.

The bill before the house makes an unnecessary exception to this sound law which is sensibly worded and suitably phrased. The intervention of an amendment like this would confound the courts; it would bring upon them utter confusion. There is no reason to limit the rights of employers, as a class, in assisting in the ejectment of trespassers. Employers, like all other citizens, are bound to obey the civil law of landlord and tenant. That law is a provincial matter under section 92 of the British North America Act.

If this bill were passed the law would prohibit an employer from assisting an employee who sought his aid in ejecting a trespasser. Surely nothing could be more absurd. I recognize the humanitarian motive of the hon. member for Winnipeg North in moving this amendment and I have some sympathy for those who have the problems he spoke of. But to translate the hon. member's desires into an amendment to the Criminal Code would, in my submission, cause much expense to be incurred and frustration to be felt. Many innocent people would suffer. The courts would dismiss charges and this part of the Criminal Code, as amended, would be considered void because of uncertainty and ruled out of order. It would give rise to endless cases. The dockets of magistrates throughout Canada would include subjects such as this which would raise difficult problems of interpretation.

[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)

For example, the words "quiet enjoyment" have various meanings attached to them, but I have checked the Criminal Code and there is no definition of "quiet enjoyment" to be found in it. "Quiet enjoyment" is a term used in English common law, especially in real estate and landlord and tenant law. It has a long history, but I submit it has no relevancy in Quebec where landlord and tenant law is

governed by the Civil Code and other statutes. A magistrate struggling with words which are not applicable to that province would be lost for a definition. They have no meaning in Quebec. The object of the Criminal Code is to standardize the law throughout the country, not the reverse.

I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is a humanitarian one and I do not quarrel with his thoughts and worth-while suggestions, but I submit the subject matter of his proposal ought properly to be placed before the legislatures of the various provinces.

At such a time in our constitutional development as the present enactment of a bill of this kind would invite the justifiable wrath of provincial legislatures. I am thinking in particular of the great province of Quebec. It would be considered an unwarranted invasion of a provincial sphere of legislation. In any event, it would probably be ruled out by any competent court as void for remoteness, or declared to be null and void for uncertainty.

Apart from the constitutional arguments against this bill, it appears to defeat its own purpose because it would prevent a helpful employer from assisting an employee to evict a trespasser. This could happen. It is not the case that employers and employees are always enemies. It is a notion which seems to be fostered by hon. members of this house who belong to the New Democratic party. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are many happy and successful companies-I am thinking particularly of the Dominion Foundry and Steel Company in Hamilton-where relations between employees and management are extremely good and where there is no need to worry about interference with employees by employers, because they work in partnership. This is what we are striving for. We are not trying to isolate people by class groups and distinctions; nothing is further from the desire of this house, I am sure. I am also sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) did not realize the implications of his bill.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Full View Permalink