Vertaling van "not surprising because i think you could easily argue " (Engels → Frans) :

My friend says that the Canadian Bar Association has put this forward, and it's not surprising because I think you could easily argue that inadmissibility would be the result of someone asking to be admissible, which you could interpret as being an application or an admissibility hearing.
Mon collègue dit que c'est une suggestion de l'Association du Barreau canadien, ce qui ne m'étonne pas, car on pourrait facilement faire valoir que l'inadmissibilité résulte du fait que quelqu'un a demandé à être admissible, ce que l'on pourrait interpréter comme étant une demande ou une audience portant sur l'admissibilité.

Here I think it was certainly not intended, but by changing the existing text, which is whenever he has “reason to believe that”, to whenever he believes “on reasonable grounds”, I think it could be argued that the test is not exactly the same, except that by adding those new words, if they were to change in any way the existing test.the revision didn't have the authority to do that because you can't change the law by the revision.
Dans ce cas-ci, même si ce n'était pas l'intention, le remplacement de «motifs raisonnables» par «raisons» pourrait éventuellement modifier le critère, ce qui n'est pas autorisé dans les circonstances.

I think you could easily argue that it's a social development or social issue.
Je pense que vous pourriez facilement faire valoir l'idée qu'il s'agit d'une question de développement social ou d'une question sociale.

But I think you could equally argue that if you're going to list these various agencies, you might then also want to put in this type of review agency, for clarity for Canadians—and there are others as well. By leaving them out, you're not confusing Canadians and you're not having to come back to Parliament every time to add or subtract to a list because Canadians are confused.
En les excluant, on évite toute confusion dans l'esprit des Canadiens et, du coup, on évite de devoir présenter une mesure législative au Parlement chaque fois que la liste change.

Now I think you could easily take the word profit and more accurately substitute prohibition for it, because after all, without prohibition there is not enough profit to drive organized crime in this country (1600) If this committee and this Parliament want to end the ability of organized crime to fund itself in the marijuana trade, the answer is clear.
Je pense que l'on pourrait facilement supprimer le mot bénéfice et lui substituer, de façon plus exacte, le mot interdiction parce que finalement, s'il n'y avait pas cette interdiction, ce commerce ne serait pas assez rentable pour intéresser le crime organisé (1600) Si votre comité et le Parlement voulaient empêcher le crime organisé de se financer grâce au commerce de la marihuana, la solution serait facile à trouver.