This is a single
speech (house debate) 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 (house debate) 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": "2017-12-11 17:00:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Garnett Genuis",
"fr": "M. Garnett Genuis"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"5185649\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, my colleague has pointed out that some of the omnibus bills in the last government were about as long as the current government's omnibus budget bills. However, the interesting thing about his response to my question is that he said that most of the provisions of this bill deal with sections of the Criminal Code that are obsolete vis-\u00e0-vis the charter or the social context. Might I point out that to declare something obsolete in light of the social context is about as general as one can get? There is all kinds of legislation that for subjective reasons some members might view as obsolete in light of a particular social context. In fact, that was, in some sense, their initial argument for the removal of section 176. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5185650\" data-originallang=\"en\">I understand the argument that it is okay to do an omnibus bill if there is a common thread. That is their argument now. It was not their argument during the election. We are holding them to the standard they set for themselves. Can they not claim a common thread on almost anything? Are there any limits to the common thread the member would tie across a range of obviously unrelated provisions?</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"5185649\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, mon coll\u00e8gue a mentionn\u00e9 que certains projets de loi omnibus du gouvernement pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent \u00e9taient presque aussi longs que les projets de loi budg\u00e9taires omnibus du pr\u00e9sent gouvernement, mais ce qui est int\u00e9ressant dans sa r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 ma question, c'est qu'il a dit que la plupart des dispositions du pr\u00e9sent projet de loi traitent de parties du Code criminel qui sont d\u00e9su\u00e8tes par rapport \u00e0 la Charte ou au contexte social. Puis-je faire remarquer que d\u00e9clarer une chose d\u00e9su\u00e8te dans un contexte social est une remarque extr\u00eamement g\u00e9n\u00e9rale? Il y a toutes sortes de lois que, pour des raisons subjectives, certains d\u00e9put\u00e9s pourraient consid\u00e9rer comme d\u00e9su\u00e8tes \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re d'un contexte social donn\u00e9. De fait, c'\u00e9tait, dans un certain sens, leur argument initial pour retirer l'article 176.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5185650\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je comprends l'argument selon lequel il est acceptable de pr\u00e9senter un projet de loi omnibus pour peu qu'il y ait un fil conducteur. C'est maintenant leur argument. Ce n'\u00e9tait pas leur argument durant la campagne \u00e9lectorale. Nous leur demandons de respecter leurs propres r\u00e8gles. Ne peuvent-ils pas toujours pr\u00e9tendre qu'il y a un fil conducteur? Y a-t-il une limite au fil conducteur que le d\u00e9put\u00e9 attribuerait \u00e0 un ensemble de dispositions manifestement sans lien entre elles?</p>"
},
"url": "/debates/2017/12/11/garnett-genuis-9/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/garnett-genuis/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4383/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "9888060",
"h1": {
"en": "Government Orders",
"fr": "Initiatives minist\u00e9rielles"
},
"h2": {
"en": "Criminal Code",
"fr": "Le Code criminel"
},
"document_url": "/debates/2017/12/11/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2017%2F12%2F11%2F"
}
}