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:

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 29, 1984

Mr. Lambert:

Oh yes it does.

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

June 21, 1984

Mr. Lambert:

-with a short fuse. But may I say that while I violently disagree with ideas as expressed at times, over the 27 years there are very few people who have come to the House of Commons about whom I could say I disliked them personally. Some I liked a great deal more than others. We all have those preferences. We have some contacts.

It has been my lot to be on this side of the House for 20 years. While we sometimes say harsh things about the actions or inactions of Ministers, we knew them when they were like ourselves, part of the foot soldiery of the House, fighting in the trenches of the committees, and we got to know them rather well. They were decent chaps.

I do not like to be patronizing and say the same thing about the lady Members who have been with us all through those years. To say they were "decent chaps" I do not think is accepted in that sense! It was an honour to serve with them and we enjoyed their influence in the House. My only regret is that we did not have many more. I am not going to pick anyone out except one, the former High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain, who is now part of the Macdonald Commission. When she was here, her presence graced the House.

My colleague opposite me, the Hon. Member for Beauhar-nois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), came here in 1962. I recall many people who came here as freshmen in 1962 who were bright, perky young Members on the back row on this side as I sat in the Chair where you are now, Mr. Speaker, and I recognized that they were a pretty hardy breed.

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

June 21, 1984

Mr. Lambert:

Mr. Speaker, I suppose one could forgive-two old hands having a little sentimental discussion. In reply, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has struck upon one of the salient points which characterizes this particular debate. Tactically I think it was disastrous to have dumped on the Order Paper this plethora of useless amendments. The points could have been made with a few well chosen amendments, the same as did the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who wanted to emphasize those points worth emphasizing. Then the House could have been engaged in meaningful debate. The Solicitor General might not have been moved in frustration, and I can understand his frustration, to bring in allocation of time. It might have resulted in a better Bill. The net result is that I find I am a loser. Since the Bill could not be changed in compliance with the desires of the House, not the bureaucracy, we are the losers.

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