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": "2016-09-22 13:50:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan\u2014Shuswap, CPC)",
"fr": "M. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan\u2014Shuswap, PCC)"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"4471497\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I want to go back and the question will also apply to this member, but we heard earlier this afternoon many members speaking and trying to change the intent of the motion. The motion was put forward to bring attention to the importance of appointing a Supreme Court judge from Atlantic Canada. Liberals have tried to twist the intent of the motion into simply respecting a custom. They show interest in it, but there is nothing to say that they would enforce having that Supreme Court justice from Atlantic Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4471498\" data-originallang=\"en\"> If they are going to try to change the intent of the motion, they should follow parliamentary procedure and put forward a formal amendment. However, I see no one from that side, especially from Atlantic Canada, even thinking about putting that type of amendment forward to enforce and strengthen the wording to make sure we had a Supreme Court judge from Atlantic Canada. Would they be willing to put that type of amendment forward or not?</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"4471497\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je voudrais revenir en arri\u00e8re. Ma question vaudra aussi pour ce d\u00e9put\u00e9-ci. Cet apr\u00e8s-midi, bien des d\u00e9put\u00e9s qui sont intervenus ont essay\u00e9 de modifier l\u2019intention qui sous-tend la motion. Celle-ci a \u00e9t\u00e9 propos\u00e9e pour faire comprendre qu\u2019il est important de nommer \u00e0 la Cour supr\u00eame un juge issu du Canada atlantique. Les lib\u00e9raux ont essay\u00e9 de travestir cette intention pour dire qu\u2019il s\u2019agit simplement de faire respecter une coutume. Ils manifestent un certain int\u00e9r\u00eat, mais rien ne dit qu\u2019ils feront en sorte qu\u2019un juge du Canada atlantique soit nomm\u00e9. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"4471498\" data-originallang=\"en\"> S\u2019ils veulent modifier l\u2019intention qui inspire la motion, les lib\u00e9raux devraient se conformer \u00e0 la proc\u00e9dure parlementaire et proposer un amendement en bonne et due forme. Mais je ne vois aucun d\u00e9put\u00e9, et surtout pas de l\u2019Atlantique, qui songe seulement \u00e0 proposer ce type d\u2019amendement pour renforcer le libell\u00e9 de la motion et faire en sorte qu\u2019un juge du Canada atlantique soit nomm\u00e9 \u00e0 la Cour supr\u00eame. Seraient-ils pr\u00eats ou non \u00e0 proposer ce genre d\u2019amendement? </p>"
},
"url": "/debates/2016/9/22/mel-arnold-1/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/mel-arnold/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4379/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "9050022",
"h1": {
"en": "Government Orders",
"fr": "Initiatives Minist\u00e9rielles"
},
"h2": {
"en": "Business of Supply",
"fr": "Travaux des subsides"
},
"h3": {
"en": "Opposition Motion--Appointments to the Supreme Court",
"fr": "Motion de l'opposition \u2014 La nomination des juges \u00e0 la Cour supr\u00eame"
},
"document_url": "/debates/2016/9/22/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2016%2F9%2F22%2F"
}
}