Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 289347,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/289347/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 207,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Standing Order No.47 of our Standing Orders emphasizes this point by providing that the Speaker, if he is of the opinion that any proposed Motion is contrary to the Constitution, without expressly proposing appropriate amendment of the Constitution, may direct either that the Motion is inadmissible or that notice of it cannot be given without such alteration as the Speaker may approve. That said, I must agree with the remarks of the hon. Attorney General made last Thursday that a conclusion that a provision of a Bill is unconstitutional should not be casually or hastily arrived at, without considering all the points of view. It cannot be the case that every claim of unconstitutionality suspends the proceedings of this House until a ruling is made by the Speaker. It may well be the case that the claim, on closer scrutiny, is made on account of an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution, or is, otherwise, unfounded. It is for this reason that the Speaker may allow other points of view to be advanced, or may allow proceedings to continue as he reflects on the claim of unconstitutionality. This was, indeed, the case in the present matter. I wish to urge Members, however, that points of order on the basis of unconstitutionality be carefully considered before they are raised. It is possible that the proceedings of the House could become adversely affected if, instead of points of argument being advanced in debate on the Floor of the House, and contrary views expressed in the same manner or by voting for or against specific provisions, matters are, instead, raised as challenges on constitutionality."
}