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:

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 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 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. Gibson:

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

Criminal Code

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.

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