Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2006-11-09 17:05:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"259840\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, unlike members opposite, I will not stoop so low as to call members of this House deceitful. A colleague of my friend opposite was not being deceitful. He probably did not read the bill and was not prepared. He made a promise during the election with no intention to keep it and, therefore, felt no need to be prepared.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"259841\" data-originallang=\"en\">This bill deals with primary designated offences, offences committed, not once or twice, but three times. We are talking about sexual interference, incest, murder and kidnapping. Unlike what the member opposite suggested, kidnapping does not require a beyond a reasonable doubt defence. I am not suggesting members opposite were being deceitful. I just do not think they are prepared. Given that there is no requirement for a beyond a reasonable doubt defence, it is a balance of probabilities. There is still an opportunity for a judge to intervene in this case. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"259842\" data-originallang=\"en\">I would just like to ask the hon. member if he agrees that this is on a balance of probabilities, not on a beyond a reasonable doubt, as was indicated by members opposite who are not properly prepared.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"259840\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, contrairement aux d\u00e9put\u00e9s d'en face, je n'irai pas jusqu'\u00e0 accuser des d\u00e9put\u00e9s de fourberie. Le coll\u00e8gue de mon ami d'en face n'a rien fait de fourbe. Il n'avait probablement pas lu le projet de loi et n'\u00e9tait pas bien pr\u00e9par\u00e9. Il a fait une promesse pendant la campagne \u00e9lectorale sans avoir aucune intention de la tenir, et n'a donc pas cru bon de se pr\u00e9parer.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"259841\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ce projet de loi porte sur les infractions primaires d\u00e9sign\u00e9es, celles qui sont commises non pas une, non pas deux, mais bien trois fois. On parle de contacts sexuels, d'inceste, de meurtre et d'enl\u00e8vement. Contrairement \u00e0 ce qu'a laiss\u00e9 entendre le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d'en face, l'enl\u00e8vement n'exige pas une d\u00e9fense fond\u00e9e sur le doute raisonnable. Je ne veux pas dire que les d\u00e9put\u00e9s d'en face voulaient nous induire en erreur. Je crois tout simplement qu'ils n'\u00e9taient pas pr\u00e9par\u00e9s. Comme il n'y a aucune exigence relativement \u00e0 une d\u00e9fense fond\u00e9e sur le doute raisonnable, c'est la pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rance des probabilit\u00e9s qui pr\u00e9vaut. Les juges peuvent toujours intervenir dans de tels cas.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"259842\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je veux simplement demander au d\u00e9put\u00e9 s'il convient que la d\u00e9fense repose sur la pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rance des probabilit\u00e9s et non sur le doute raisonnable, comme l'ont laiss\u00e9 entendre certains d\u00e9put\u00e9s d'en face qui n'\u00e9taient pas bien pr\u00e9par\u00e9s.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2006/11/9/gary-goodyear-3/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/gary-goodyear/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1353/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "1774539",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Criminal Code",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2006/11/9/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2006%2F11%2F9%2F"
    }
}