Marcel Joseph Aimé LAMBERT

LAMBERT, The Hon. Marcel Joseph Aimé, P.C., Q.C., B.Comm., B.A., B.C.L., M.A.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Edmonton West (Alberta)
Birth Date
August 21, 1919
Deceased Date
September 24, 2000
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lambert
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=2094cd47-759f-4f54-8d75-9da36dd888a2&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
  • Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence (August 7, 1957 - February 1, 1958)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue (November 18, 1959 - November 17, 1961)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue (January 18, 1962 - April 19, 1962)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
  • Speaker of the House of Commons (September 27, 1962 - February 11, 1963)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
  • Minister of Veterans Affairs (February 12, 1963 - April 21, 1963)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
PC
  Edmonton West (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 1966)


June 29, 1984

Mr. Lambert:

Oh yes it does.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INDIAN ACT ' AMENDMENTS RESPECTING BIRTH OF CHILDREN
Full View Permalink

June 29, 1984

Mr. Lambert:

Mr. Speaker, I will agree that you did call the report stage and that there was nothing said at that time. However, to have the report stage adopted-which it was- and to move to third reading, the Chair required the unanimous consent of the House because the report enclosed amendments. When there are amendments put, there is a requirement-if one is going to go into third reading-to have the unanimous consent of the House to move to third reading. Otherwise, third reading is deferred until the next sitting of the House. That is particularly important in legislation, not just taxable legislation which comes from the Committee of the Whole, as I heard suggested to you. I emphasize that it is a basic requirement-if there are amendments made in committee, in Committee of the Whole, or at the report stage-that there be unanimous consent to proceed to third reading after adoption of report stage.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INDIAN ACT ' AMENDMENTS RESPECTING BIRTH OF CHILDREN
Full View Permalink

June 29, 1984

Mr. Lambert:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is all part and parcel of the difficulties that we have envisaged with the hurry-scurry of trying to finish up. I sympathize very much with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I would suggest that should similar occasions arise in the future, the Speaker should make it his or her duty to point out to the House that, as a result presumably of the arrangement made this time between the House Leaders to telescope the 48-hour period following the tabling of a report of a committee with regard to legislation, the 24-hour period during which Members could propose amendments had been eliminated. The Chair should clearly point out that now is the time to bring forward amendments, if any. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that not all Members of the House are cognizant of the fine footwork which goes on or the intricacies of the rules of the House. We have a situation now in which the Hon. Member Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has been caught unawares. I do not think it is good enough for anyone in this House to tell any Member- and particularly for the Chair to tell a Member-"Tough luck, but you should have known that as a result of the moves which have been made, your rights as a Member to propose an amendment have been lost". I make that statement with the benefit of a fair amount of experience on this side. It is a basic rule of the Chair to protect the rights of all Members.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INDIAN ACT ' AMENDMENTS RESPECTING BIRTH OF CHILDREN
Full View Permalink

June 21, 1984

Mr. Lambert:

Yes, much younger then. Twenty-two years have passed and it is remarkable how much 22 can add to a man's life when he starts out in his late 30s or early 40s.

There are many things in this House that one would want to see changed. My colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), alluded to something that could happen in the United States Senate which has a singular effect on changing administration policy. It is very difficult to make those changes here, but it should be possible. The ordinary Member on the Government side of the House should be released from the overpowering albatross of Cabinet control,

Security Intelligence Service

of everything that moves or breathes in the Chamber, and so have some independence of thought.

One has only to go back to the books of 1920 describing the lives of the people who were the first bureaucrats, the mandarins in the administration of the Public Service. The philosophy is still the same. Gracious me, I heard an analysis of Bill C-24 on the radio this afternoon. It just happens that I have been very active on the committee hearing that Bill. One can see the almost Machiavellian hand of bureaucratic control that is being imposed through the net of Crown Corporations, not only Crown Corporations of a business type, but the cultural ones in particular. The Government has now reneged on its position. We see now that directors general of the National Arts Centre and people in the Canada Council were intimidated by telephone calls not to object to Cabinet power to appoint. We hope we will get the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) before the committee if the Government majority will allow the motion to be put by my colleague the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to the effect that the Minister and his deputy minister appear before the committee. That is as it should be.

I want to see more power and better services for individual Members. I want to thank the officers of the House who have served over the years. One also has to say goodbye to constituents, but one does not do it here because they are not present. As far as that goes, I think I have served them reasonably well as a parliamentarian. I did not have that opportunity, nor could I, nor would I, of being a Member of Parliament and conducting, shall we say, full practice of law at the same time, because I lived 46 hours away by train when I was first elected. Then it became 14 hours' flying time, and it is now three and a half to four hours.

Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, and having said some other things the other night on my motion with regard to the Commissioners of Internal Economy, I would like to say a few words about this Bill. I was torn really, I felt in a dilemma, over the proposal because I felt, and I still do, that ideally it would be better for a civilian intelligence agency to look after that side of the business and for the RCMP to concentrate upon being the federal police force and to carry out any of its duties that might involve the RCMP with the operation of civil intelligence and so forth. I said ideally. There I think I share the opinion of many of my colleagues. But having gone into this Bill rather more deeply in asking questions, particularly the one that was answered the other day by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) himself as to why does the Director of this agency, why does the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and why do three or four other directors who have the rank of deputy minister now, in the last 15 years and in this case with the implementation of this legislation, report through the Deputy Solicitor General? The answer given to me was fashioned by the bureaucrats. It was self-serving. The Minister shakes his head.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Full View Permalink

June 21, 1984

Mr. Lambert:

Senseless.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Full View Permalink