This is a single
speech (committee meeting) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
This is a single
speech (committee meeting) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
{
"time": "2013-12-02 15:50:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Christopher Nelligan",
"fr": "M. Christopher Nelligan"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"3521994\" data-originallang=\"en\">The grounds to give discretion to the minister in this regard were not specified. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3521995\" data-originallang=\"en\">One of the concerns is that if you begin to specify particular grounds in the statute, you limit the agency to those grounds and those grounds alone. At least that's the argument that will be made by people in court, that if you're finding some other good reason to deal with someone in this way, you're not allowed to do it because Parliament specified the only few reasons why you could.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3521996\" data-originallang=\"en\">The other concern that does arise is the presumption that if you put this into the statute specifically, that is then a statutory decision and it can be judicially reviewed, and the experience, at least with CBSA, tends to be that the more judicial reviews you have, the more time these processes take. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3521997\" data-originallang=\"en\">I hope that's helpful.</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"3521994\" data-originallang=\"en\">Les motifs pour accorder un pouvoir discr\u00e9tionnaire du ministre \u00e0 ce sujet ne sont pas pr\u00e9cis\u00e9s. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3521995\" data-originallang=\"en\">On craint notamment que si on commence \u00e0 pr\u00e9ciser les motifs dans le projet de loi, l'agence devra se limiter exclusivement \u00e0 ces motifs. C'est du moins ce que feront valoir les gens en cour, soulignant que si on trouve d'autres bonnes raisons d'agir de la sorte \u00e0 l'endroit de quelqu'un, on ne peut le faire parce que le Parlement n'a pr\u00e9vu qu'une poign\u00e9e de motifs. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3521996\" data-originallang=\"en\">En outre, on peut pr\u00e9sumer que si vous pr\u00e9cisez ces motifs dans le projet de loi, il s'agit l\u00e0 d'une d\u00e9cision statutaire, qui peut alors faire l'objet d'un examen. Or, l'exp\u00e9rience, \u00e0 tout le moins celle de l'ASFC, tend \u00e0 montrer que plus il y a d'examens judiciaires, plus le processus est long. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3521997\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'esp\u00e8re que ces informations vous sont utiles. </p>"
},
"url": "/committees/industry/41-2/7/christopher-nelligan-2/",
"politician_url": null,
"politician_membership_url": null,
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "8171595",
"document_url": "/committees/industry/41-2/7/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Findustry%2F41-2%2F7%2F"
}
}