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": "2014-10-30 16:35:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Sean Casey",
"fr": "M. Sean Casey"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"3887212\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Okay.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3887213\" data-originallang=\"en\">I have two follow-ups to that.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3887214\" data-originallang=\"en\">The first is with respect to clause 20 of the proposed victims bill of rights on page 6, where it talks about the following:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3887215\" data-originallang=\"en\"> This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.... </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3887216\" data-originallang=\"en\">Then it goes on with a bunch of criteria.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3887217\" data-originallang=\"en\">You've said that if it's to be interpreted this way, it's unconstitutional. Can it be saved by clause 20? How is it to be interpreted? Where clause 20 says that the interpretation that we have to give of it is constitutional, what would that interpretation be? And how would you recommend it be clarified so that everybody knows that's what was meant, and that it is to be constitutional?</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"3887212\" data-originallang=\"en\">D'accord. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3887213\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'ai deux choses \u00e0 mentionner \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3887214\" data-originallang=\"en\">Tout d'abord, en ce qui a trait \u00e0 l'article 20 du projet de loi sur les droits des victimes, \u00e0 la page 6, on peut lire ce qui suit: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3887215\" data-originallang=\"en\"> La pr\u00e9sente loi doit \u00eatre interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e et appliqu\u00e9e de mani\u00e8re raisonnable dans les circonstances [...] </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3887216\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le texte \u00e9nonce ensuite un certain nombre de crit\u00e8res. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3887217\" data-originallang=\"en\">Vous avez mentionn\u00e9 que, si votre interpr\u00e9tation est juste, l'article en question est inconstitutionnel. Est-ce que l'article 20 permettrait d'en pr\u00e9server la constitutionnalit\u00e9? Comment doit-on l'interpr\u00e9ter? Si l'article 20 pr\u00e9voit que la loi doit \u00eatre interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e de fa\u00e7on constitutionnelle, quelle serait la teneur de cette interpr\u00e9tation? En outre, quelles mesures devrions-nous prendre pour clarifier l'article de mani\u00e8re \u00e0 ce que tout le monde en comprenne la signification et \u00e0 ce qu'il soit conforme \u00e0 la Constitution? </p>"
},
"url": "/committees/justice/41-2/49/sean-casey-2/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/sean-casey/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4040/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "8490349",
"document_url": "/committees/justice/41-2/49/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Fjustice%2F41-2%2F49%2F"
}
}