House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was opposition.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Conservative MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Apec Summit October 6th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, there is a letter that was discussed this morning by the minister. On September 21 the minister rose in this House saying that it would be completely inappropriate to discuss any details around this investigation. The minister obviously discussed this with a friend on the airplane, which he did not remember last night but did a couple of hours later.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The minister did discuss it. He said in this House he should not. Should he not resign until this commission is over?

Apec Summit October 6th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at 3.30 the Solicitor General was out in the lobby denying he ever said what he said. By 5.30 last night there is a letter in Ottawa saying he did—

Apec Summit October 6th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, this morning the chairman of the Public Complaints Commission said that comments attributed to the Solicitor General have hurt the public trust in the Public Complaints Commission.

My question is to the Prime Minister. His own Solicitor General said on September 21 “We have to protect the integrity of that investigation to get to the truth”.

With the feeling in the Public Complaints Commission that their trust has been affected, will the Prime Minister ask the Solicitor General to resign until this matter is over?

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's question in the same area. In her speech the member said that this is not about downsizing. We can all agree with that. There is nothing the past two governments have done in this country over the last 15 years that has been downsizing. Everything they have done has created more jobs for people in the bureaucracy so I am not too concerned about that area.

The member said that it is not harmonizing through the back door, that it is not being forced and that it is a choice. She quoted a minister from one of our smaller provinces who said that where efficiencies were to be gained they would look at it.

This government has been looking at it with the provinces for over 18 months. It does not have the definite agreement of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, which is the overwhelming majority of this country. The government will not get those agreements even once the act is in place.

As my colleague said in his question, with the election coming up in Quebec, this is another little thing we can throw in the fire to show that this country is not working in the way the people and the provinces want it to work. They do not want a bigger federal government with bigger federal government agencies. The provinces want to run their own business. They do not want these kinds of agencies and they have told the government that.

The government has had a consultative process. The government says that it is listening. When the majority of provinces are saying they do not want this, why is the government proceeding with a bill that is going to change the face of this thing, probably create a lot more jobs in the federal bureaucracy, but not solve any problems for Canadians and the provinces? It will not give any more power to the provinces which is what the provinces want.

This is not consultation. This is big brother telling the rest of us what we should be doing in the provinces.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member for Ottawa Centre. When I listen to him, I realize he lives in Ottawa, in this august place where parliament is. He should visit the rest of the country once in a while.

He talks about this being a historic moment. In 1917 this House had another historic moment. We brought in a temporary income tax law. Now we have another historic moment where the government is trying to bring in another bill which is not going to do the average Canadian any good at all.

The member said it was a great consultative process, that the government is listening. Why is it after all this time that none of the provinces have signed on to this project? Why is it that Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, the majority of the people in Canada do not like this project? Yet this government is consulting. Why did it not wait until it at least got the agreement of the provinces? If this is a country where the federal government is going to work with the provinces, surely we should not have legislation in this House before the provinces or at least the majority of the provinces come to an agreement. Right now we have zero.

I ask the member why he thinks the government had a consultative process. Why does he think the government is listening when it does not have provinces signing on to this project?

He talked about Statistics Canada being the envy of the world. One would have to live in Ottawa to think that. He should talk to the people in British Columbia or Nova Scotia about Statistics Canada and the interference in their private lives if he thinks it is the envy of the world. Perhaps people outside Canada who have never been here think it is the envy of the world, but not the people who live here and pay taxes.

I ask the member, why is this bill so good when not one province has signed on to it?

The Late Hon. Lucien Lamoureux September 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate on behalf of the official opposition in this tribute to the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, the esteemed gentleman who occupied your chair from 1966 to 1974.

The word distinguished does not seem adequate in describing Mr. Lamoureux. Perhaps there is not a word in our lexicon that truly captures the nature and the capacity of this man.

From the time of his formative years Mr. Lamoureux was destined for greatness. He would stand out amongst his peers.

Born in Ottawa in 1920, Mr. Lamoureux attended the University of Ottawa where he earned a Master's degree in philosophy before studying law at Osgoode Hall. After graduating in 1945 he went to work for Lionel Chevrier, a cabinet minister in the governments of Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent.

In 1954 he took a break from politics and opened a law practice in Cornwall. His roots ran deep in the Liberal Party. His work in Cornwall on behalf of the separate school board, the Children's Aid Society and the Community Chest were without equal.

The urge to serve at the federal level was compelling for Mr. Lamoureux. He sought federal office and was elected as MP for Stormont in 1962. He immediately exhibited an interest and an ability in the rules and procedures of the House. Always a measured and reflective man, his interest seemed a natural fit.

When the Liberal Party came to power in 1963 he was appointed the Deputy Speaker. He attended only two meetings of the Liberal caucus before deciding to withdraw in order to emphasize the impartial nature of his position. Integrity, balance and fairness were hallmarks that would define this gentleman's nature in the time that followed.

Following the 1965 general election, Prime Minister Lester Pearson nominated Mr. Lamoureux for the role of Speaker. Mr. Lamoureux took the chair in 1966 and served as Speaker for eight years until 1974.

The real statement of this gentleman's ability was the fact that he presided over two minority parliaments during his eight years as Speaker. As Mr. Speaker can appreciate, this would be an onerous time for even the most serene individual. Mr. Lamoureux carried it off with the usual aplomb, balance and calm. It could have been an explosive time, particularly in February 1968 when the Pearson government lost a vote at third reading on a financial bill. After much representation from all sides, Speaker Lamoureux was able to avoid disorder until adjournment hour at 10.00 p.m., a statement to his ability, rationale and his great knowledge of the rules.

By April 1968 Mr. Lamoureux had decided he would not fight another election as a member of a political party. He asked for an all-party agreement to support his candidacy as an independent. Prime Minister Trudeau and opposition leader Robert Stanfield, in order to keep Mr. Lamoureux as Speaker, did not nominate candidates against him. Mr. Lamoureux won a landslide victory over his NDP opponent.

Before the 1972 general election Mr. Lamoureux announced that he would again run as an independent and won again in his riding of Stormont. Once again he was Speaker. By April 1974 he had been the Speaker in the chair for 3,010 days, surpassing the record held by Rudolphe Lemieux who was Speaker from 1922 to 1930.

In September 1974 he retired from politics and was shortly afterward appointed as ambassador to Belgium from 1974 to 1980. After that he was appointed as ambassador to Portugal from 1980 to 1985. Mr. Lamoureux said at the time of his retirement from politics “I believe I have done my share in serving my country and I will now leave it up to other men”.

I would like to add a more personal observation on this excellent individual for Canada.

I was elected to this House in 1972 and had the honour of being recognized for the first time by Speaker Lamoureux on January 9, 1973 in question period. His reputation of impartiality was renowned and he was revered for fairness and objectivity by every single parliamentarian of the day. I will never forget coming to this House and watching him in operation.

Columnists during Mr. Lamoureux's days as Speaker and columnists of today recognize him as the most adroit and neutral arbiter of competing politicians. Some have called him the best speaker in modern times. While his style, wit and nature have been emulated, they have seldom been duplicated.

I had the honour of serving as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1987 to 1989. I can admit that I drew upon examples of the rulings and temperament of Speaker Lamoureux more than once during my Speaker's role.

Mr. Speaker, you know in your capacity and in the manner you too strive for impartiality that some days your very sinew is tested in the job of Speaker. It is an onerous job, but a richly rewarding one.

It is fitting that Mr. Lamoureux received the Order of Canada before his passing. It was another distinction bestowed on this most deserving of gentlemen.

Mr. Lamoureux is the benchmark from which all others in the Speaker's chair will be judged.

To his wife, Elizabeth, daughter Isabelle and stepchildren Emmanuel and Karen, I extend on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal official opposition our sincerest condolences. Lucien Lamoureux is one of those parliamentarians and Speakers that comes but once in a lifetime.

Apec Summit September 25th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is nice for the Acting Prime Minister to say we are trying to undermine the Public Complaints Commission. In 1989 when the Public Complaints Commission wanted to investigate Norman Inkster's role in a budget leak, it was this government that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to keep the Public Complaints Commission from doing its job.

How can the Canadian public be assured that this government will allow the Public Complaints Commission to investigate the role of the PMO in the APEC affair?

Apec Summit September 25th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, in 1986, while the government was in opposition and the Conservative Party brought in legislation for the Public Complaints Commission, the current heritage minister said “I urge the government to make changes to allow the Public Complaints Commission to investigate beyond the RCMP”.

The Acting Prime Minister knows that the Public Complaints Commission cannot investigate the role of the PMO. Can the minister tell the House if he will make changes so we can guarantee that the PMO, if it is to be investigated, can be investigated by the Public Complaints Commission?

Apec Summit September 24th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister should realize that I was not there then. I was not a member of the Mulroney government.

I want to quote for him again what the present heritage minister said about that bill in debate. She said that the commission would be hamstrung and only be allowed to have internal investigations and review evidence, but would not be allowed conduct its own investigation.

Members of this government in opposition did not like this bill. They did not like the aspect that it is not independent and it cannot investigate the government. Why have they changed their minds?

Apec Summit September 24th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, they love it now, but they hated it in 1986 when the bill was introduced.

The present minister of heritage said in 1986 “The only reason you like the Public Complaints Commission now is that your government is in trouble”, and that was the government of the day.

The reason this government likes the Public Complaints Commission now is that it is in trouble and it is the government of the day.