Andrew Lawton
Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“They will claim full coverage, as we see across southwestern Ontario in particular, when everyone who lives there knows that is just a joke. I thank my colleague across the aisle from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this very important discussion. I have actually spent some time in her riding in the past, and I know it is very rural.”
“I want to see us identify ways to ensure accuracy in telecom coverage maps in rural Canada, but I also want to see us fix and expand those areas where we know the coverage is not there.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is a particular privilege to speak to a bill such as this one, which speaks directly to one of the most persistent concerns I hear from people in the rural communities in my riding, scattered across Elgin County…”
“We still have the same problem, which is that we have people looking to a new technology, but that not solving the problem, which is applicable to not just the farmers in my riding, but all the people who live in these rural communities who want to work in these communities, want to study in these communities and, as my colleague for Aval…”
“As technology evolves, we see farmers incorporating more and more technology into their work that requires cellular connectivity, especially if they are out in the field, far from the Wi-Fi routers they may have in their homes or, increasingly, in their barns.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. It is with great pride and pleasure that I present a petition on behalf of representatives of the Elgin County Drowning Prevention Coalition, including Briar McCaw, Linda King and Nathan MacIntyre of the RIP Current Information Project.”
The complete record
Every one of 676 lines we hold for Andrew Lawton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 14.
“To be respectful of the House's time, I will just skip ahead to a headline from a few hours ago: “Boy, 12, and man charged after unhoused man killed in unprovoked attack, Toronto police say”. That was a different 12-year-old. Every single day since the Minister of Justice mocked Canadians concerned about crime, there has been yet another example, and there are many more that I did not have time to share today. Many of these cases are offenders out on bail, out on release or under conditions after previous criminality that has already been known. This has long since passed the point where we even need to provide evidence of how the bail system and the justice system in this country have been broken. The one thing we can say for certain is that this has all happened under the Liberal government's watch over the last 10 years.”
“This is from August 30: “Police say over 80 shots fired, three injured in downtown Hamilton shooting”. This is from August 31: “Police say man, 46, 'targeted' in Vaughan homicide; 3 suspects wanted”. This is from September 1: “2 men shot in Scarborough, Toronto police appeal for info”. This is from September 2: “Shooting at Abbotsford, B.C., home leaves residents 'shaken' but uninjured”. This is from September 3: “12-year-old charged with attempted murder in Markham shooting”. Believe it or not, that 12-year-old was out on bail. This is from September 4: “Woman 'kidnapped', family member shot during yet another Ontario home invasion”. This is from September 5: two people killed and two injured in a double homicide in Vancouver.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly three months, actually a little over three months, since I asked the Minister of Justice a very important question for the people in my constituency and across the country, which was, in essence, when is the Liberal government going to stop putting the rights of offenders ahead of the rights of victims in this country? Over the summer, we have seen a proliferation, an expansion, a continuation of crime and lawlessness in large cities and small communities all across this country. On August 29, the justice minister said, “This isn’t the Wild West.” I would like to read some headlines that followed that comment. This is from August 29: “Repeat offender charged after alleged attack on transit police officer in Vancouver”.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the question from the member for Winnipeg North , because he acknowledged that, even in a hypothetical scenario, the economic situation is so dire that a Canadian needs to go overseas to find employment. I have a question for my colleague, who I think exemplifies what it means to become a Canadian when one is born elsewhere, to love this country and to adopt this country as one's own. How does she feel, as someone who does not have Canada as her birth nation, about what it means to immigrants who build a life here and become Canadians, to have that citizenship devalued by legislation like this?”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health erroneously referred to something called a “new government” and— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“The mural has already been showcased at the Aylmer legion and will soon be presented at the Old Imperial Market. The teachers and students hope to bring their work of art to the provincial capital and eventually on to Ottawa to share their love of Canada with as many people as possible. Congratulations to all the artists. Go, Eagles.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada Day may still be a couple of weeks away, but the students of East Elgin Secondary School are already putting their pride in our great country on display. Over 30 grade 10 art students, led by teachers Robert Ponzio and Aimee Sawyers, have spent months crafting a magnificent 16-foot-by-20-foot mural of a Canadian flag made up of self-portraits of all of the young artists. The masterpiece is called On Guard for Thee . It is a vibrant and patriotic expression of the community's diversity and Canadian identity. The project was supported by the Royal Canadian Legion branches in Port Burwell and Aylmer, and some of the communities' veterans have already had a chance to take it in. Those who have served and helped build our country get to see the spirit of Canada alive in the next generation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary had the audacity to mention the Portapique shooting to justify the Liberal government's attack on gun owners. The brutal murderer, in that case, used illegally acquired guns. He himself did not legally own them. It is disgraceful that the government would take advantage of those victims to score political points off the backs of law-abiding gun owners. He should be ashamed, and I hope he apologizes for that. Will the government, since clearly the minister and the parliamentary secretary do not know anything about the gun file, abandon this half-baked confiscation scheme, which targets only law-abiding owners, not killers, not gang murderers and not those who are actually responsible for breaking the law?”
“Only when the Liberal government and the minister responsible for the firearms program learn about guns will they apparently realize that its regime is based on complete and utter falsehoods. I am here to ask once and for all whether the Minister of Public Safety will commit to scrapping the confiscation scheme that only, not majorly, not generally, but only, targets law-abiding gun owners.”
“The firearms that were banned by order in council five years ago, and the Liberals have added to this list continually, are firearms that were used by hunters, sport shooters and collectors, without any issue and without any connection to gun crime whatsoever. I represent a riding that has a lot of rural communities where, unlike perhaps for the Laurentian elites across the aisle, firearms are a way of life. Firearms are a way of life for people in Aylmer, people in St. Thomas, people in Central Elgin and some Londoners as well, because they understand that firearms are a hobby and a pastime that has deep roots in Canada. Therefore, when the Liberal government passes its measures on firearms based on misinformation, it should take the opportunity to be educated and to learn.”
“What I asked the minister in question period was whether he would commit to actually learning about his file, and, because he clearly did not know anything about it, whether he would commit to scrapping the Liberal government's firearms confiscation regime. Now, the minister has had a couple of weeks to bone up on this; maybe he has, or maybe he has not, but what I can tell members is that Canadian gun owners have been attacked by the government, which does not know that they are statistically less likely to commit a crime, and less likely to have any connection to gun violence or gun crime by virtue of having gone through the rigorous vetting, training and examination that the Canadian firearms program requires of gun owners.”
“It is actually predicated on the idea that law-abiding firearms owners are the source of gun crime in Canada. I was not actually surprised that the minister responsible for the scheme did not know anything about guns and gun owners, because if he did know, the Liberals' plans would not exist; they would not make any sense, and they would be aware of that. We know that the vast majority of firearms crime in Canada is the responsibility of guns that have been illegally smuggled across the Canada-U.S. border. It is guns that are very connected to organized crime and gangs. It is not Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle. It is not the firearm of a law-abiding, licensed firearms owner like I am and like many of my colleagues in the House are.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the public safety minister in a question period recently stemmed from a rather bizarre exchange I had with him during committee of the whole, in which the minister responsible for overseeing Canada's gun laws admitted that he did not know what a firearms licence was. He admitted he did not know about the Canadian firearms safety course that all Canadian firearms owners must pass to get their firearms licence. I suspect if I had a bit more time, I might have learned that the minister did not even know what a firearm was, but unfortunately we will have to save that for the next committee of the whole. Why this is important is that the Liberal government's firearms confiscation regime is predicated on misinformation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to this chamber, but ultimately the direction that the party has taken is a continuation of Justin Trudeau. In fact, the Prime Minister 's most recent résumé line item was as an adviser to Justin Trudeau. If there has been a break in the timeline, I am not exactly sure when it was.”
“Mr. Speaker, as some members of this House may know, I used to have a career in media before I joined here. A few days ago, I saw a clip from question period that was a couple of years old, but I thought it was recent because the front bench was entirely the same. I do think that for a party that insists on saying that it is a new government, there is a heck of a lot of continuity, not just in the people but also the policies, attitudes and approaches, which is why I do not trust the current government to give itself or any other agencies tremendous powers of warrantless oversight on Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's very insightful question. I cannot answer to what the government members were thinking by putting this forward, but I do know that there is a general trend that we have seen from the Liberal government, of trying to do omnibus legislation so they can advance things that are very unpopular or unconstitutional while hiding behind things that are popular and that all parties would agree with. I fear that is precisely what the Liberals are doing with this bill, by going after civil liberties while also offering things that are important that we could all agree on, such as the need to get tough on border security.”
“Mr. Speaker, while I am honoured to represent just shy of 20,000 Londoners, London is a part of a riding that also encompasses the County of Elgin and St. Thomas and Aylmer. The fact that the voters in my riding elected a Conservative member of Parliament is an important indication of what the constituents I represent believe. They were saying they wanted the Liberals to get tough with respect to the border, but they were not. That is why the constituents were voting Conservative. They were saying they wanted a government that would get tough on crime and they were not getting that from the Liberals. I was elected because people did not want the current government to do it. Of the 26,000 doors that I knocked on, not one single person said, “I really think that government needs to crack down on people buying a truck with cash.””
“Anytime they have been raised in the course of debating the bill, the Liberals have fallen back on either making a false claim, such as that a warrant is required under the Canada Post section, which it is not, or just relying on the notion that we are to trust them because there is no way the Liberal government would abuse this power. I do not trust them, and my constituents do not trust them either.”
“While I am grateful the bill would deal with some issues at the border that we have long been calling for solutions for as Conservatives, it is taking a very broad brush and, in doing so, is treating ordinary law-abiding Canadians as though they are criminals, as though they have something to hide from the government or must be doing something wrong simply because they are using cash, as anyone who identifies as old school would do. What other legal things is the government planning to regulate or restrict? When we are looking at this bill, with how many different sections and different parts it has, we have to look at the good and we have to look at the bad. I think the government has tried to do too much in the course of this legislation. We have to look at the civil liberties concerns.”
“I do not accept that the government is permitted to say to just trust it with putting a further restriction in place on how Canadians transact, and this is incredibly important. The Bank of Canada, which the Prime Minister used to run, has been advocating for central bank digital currency, something that would put the government more in control of and make it more able to monitor the transactions that Canadians choose to undertake. There are many reasons that people would use cash. In fact, in most cases that I am aware of, it has nothing to do with law breaking. It is simply because of convenience, avoiding staggering credit card fees and having the ability to transact and ensure that the local farmers' market or the person selling a vehicle in a riding, neighbourhood, whatever it is, can be free of government interference.”
“I represent a lot of rural and smaller communities in my riding, and it is not uncommon for someone to buy a used vehicle, buy a farm truck or buy a new piece of equipment for $10,000 or $15,000. Some may ask, as the Liberals do, why anyone would need to do that. We live in a free society where we do not need to justify our decision to engage in transactions with legal tender to the government. I am very aware of the fact that, as I speak, the Liberal government is actively fighting in court against a Federal Court decision that found its use of the Emergencies Act illegal in 2022. This is a government that unlawfully and unconstitutionally froze people's bank accounts without due process and without oversight. That sent a chill throughout the country as people realized that the government would use its power without regard for the law.”
“I will read directly from the bill: Every person or entity that is engaged in a business, a profession or the solicitation of charitable financial donations from the public commits an offence if the person or entity accepts a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more. After 10 years of economic mismanagement, $10,000 is a regular haul at the grocery store. This $10,000 may seem like an amount, as the Liberals like to say, that no one is dealing in. They say no one is going around and dealing in $10,000 transactions unless they have something to hide.”
“It would take away any liability for anything arising from demand, seizure, detention or retention, which means Canadians would have no rights to question or challenge what Canada Post is doing with their mail. To be clear, Canada Post has not asked for this power, that I have seen. This is something the Liberal government would voluntarily hand over without any regard for the civil liberties concerns. We can look at part 11 of the bill, which would ban cash transactions over $10,000. It would not put in a reporting requirement. It would not restrict it. It would not add bureaucracy or red tape. It is a clear ban.”
“Therefore we are left, as Canadians, with the questions that the Liberal government is not answering: What are the constraints on this power? What would Canada Post be entitled to do or be authorized to do, not just with goods it may seize but also with information it may seize? The bill specifically talks about intercepting letters. That does not just mean opening an envelope and looking for fentanyl; that also means opening a piece of mail and being allowed to read it. Who would have access to correspondence? What could be done with it? Would it be tracked? Would it be registered? Would it be entered into a database? These are questions that we do not have answers for because the Liberals are denying that the text of the bill is what it is. (1810) Moreover, the bill would give Canada Post immunity.”
“One of the provisions of the bill, part 4, would give Canada Post unilateral power to open not just parcels but also letters. This means that a letter one sends to anyone in the country could be intercepted, without a warrant or judicial oversight, by someone at Canada Post. Something we have heard in the course of debate this evening and this afternoon is some misinformation from the Liberal government. The Liberals say, “Oh, no, it would be subject to warrant.” Well, I have combed through the legislation, the entire bill, but also part 4 specifically, and in part 4, which deals with changes to the Canada Post Corporation Act, the word “warrant” does not appear once. In the act that this section of the bill cites, there is no discussion of warrants whatsoever.”
“On this, I will say that I am grateful the government has taken some suggestions that the Conservatives have made over the years and put them in the bill, but the problem is that it is an omnibus bill. It tries to do a great many things. Some of it is stuff that I would say the Conservatives have been leaders on. Others are things that, when I look at the legislation, I wonder where they came from or who was asking for them. While there is a lack of addressing bail issues and a lack of addressing sentencing issues, there are things in the bill about which I cannot imagine why the Liberals thought they were relevant for a bill that, by their own admission, is supposed to be about the border. I want to focus on two of those right now because I have a long track record of advocating for civil liberties.”
“Conservatives have been asking the Liberals for the last couple of weeks why there is nothing in the bill that deals with sentencing for fentanyl kingpins. Why is there nothing that deals with bail issues that allow repeat offenders to continue to be out on the street after offending? The Liberals have always come back to the same position, which is that it is just a border bill, not a crime bill, but that is a very narrow and naive way of looking at the legislation. They do not understand that these cross-border issues are integrally connected to the crime and justice issues that they are not acknowledging, that they are not acting on and that the bill has no solutions for.”
“One notable example of this was allowing Roxham Road to balloon into a full-blown illegal immigration scheme that the government turned a blind eye to. This was something that happened for years and years, and the government would not act. Issues pertaining to smuggling of firearms, drugs and even people have been allowed to become the crisis they are today. While I am grateful that the Liberals have decided to come to the party late, I have to ask why it took so long. What prevented them from taking action on this? Let me be perfectly clear that a lot of the issues we see with crime and drugs in our country, including gang violence using illegal firearms smuggled in across the border, are issues that cannot just be neatly siloed off into one particular portfolio.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise on an issue as important as a bill that deals with Canada's border. I have been among those people sounding the alarm for years about the Liberal government's inaction on the border. When there has been action, it was action that aggravated and exacerbated the problems. These are long-standing challenges caused by a Liberal government that, despite its proclamations, is not a new government but a continuation of what we had over the last 10 years. While I am heartened by the fact that the Liberals have acknowledged there is a border crisis, I have a great many concerns with the way they have chosen to tackle that. Let me be clear: One of the biggest issues, in my media career, I would frequently criticize the government's handling of was the lax approach to border security.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made, in a throwaway comment, the claim that Canada Post's powers under the bill to open mail unilaterally would be subject to a warrant. I have studied the bill, and I even looked at it just after the member said that. The word “warrant” does not appear once in part 4 of the act, which deals with the powers of Canada Post. It says very clearly “the corporation”, referring to Canada Post. There is no reference to police, no reference to courts and no reference to warrants. Will the member please point to precisely where a warrant would be required for this authority?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not want to be criticized for caring more about criminals than victims, he should look at his own government's record. The Liberals adjourned the justice committee meeting yesterday after 16 minutes to start their summer vacation, without tabling or discussing a single motion or bill related to justice. Violent crime is up 50%. Opioid overdoses are up 200%. Health officials in my riding are warning about carfentanil on the streets of Elgin County. People are dying, and those who are responsible are walking free. When will the Liberals table a crime bill and focus on that instead of their summer break?”
“Mr. Speaker, a worker at a so-called safe injection site in Toronto helped someone literally try to get away with murder. Her sentence was a house arrest sentence with educational programming and daily trips to the gym, par for the course from the lawless Liberals, who care more about criminals than victims and who think bail should be as easy to get as free drugs. When will the Liberals stop ignoring pleas from Canadians to fix the justice system and clean up the streets?”
“Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations to the hon. member opposite on her maiden speech. She spoke a lot about the Liberal government's plans, dreams and aspirations for housing, but missing from a lot of this was a frank discussion about its record. Under the last 10 years of the Liberals, home prices have doubled. The housing accelerator fund the member touts gave out hundreds of millions of dollars to municipalities that ended up hiking home taxes for people trying to build homes, making them further and further out of reach. All we have received from the government is a vague pledge for Brookfield bungalows, but very little that is going to make homes more affordable long-term. Will the member denounce the last 10 years of the Liberal housing record?”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that the Prime Minister has moved the goalposts here. It was to be unequivocal free trade by Canada Day. Now the government is saying, “Well, this is provincial, and that is provincial.” Why has the commitment not been met?”
“Mr. Chair, the main estimates show $62.7 billion in spending on personnel. That is an increase over last year of $3.5 billion. Are Canadian taxpayers getting more from the federal public service this year?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister either did not listen to the question or did not care about it. These are important questions that deserve answers. It is shameful that the minister responsible for the federal public service has no interest in talking about whether that service is operating effectively. The federal public service has grown by 40% in the last 10 years. Are Canadians getting their money's worth?”
“Mr. Chair, I will not allow the minister to be a demagogue when we have such limited time. He heard the question. If he would like to answer it on my next one, he is fully able to. What benchmarks does the federal government use to ensure that the public service is delivering value to taxpayers?”
“Apparently, the minister is not here to talk about anything, Mr. Chair, but I will try again. In 2023-24, the Public Service Commission annual report said there was a 3% increase in the federal public service. The Canadian population grew by 1.8% in 2024. Does the minister think it is normal and justifiable that the federal public service is outpacing population growth?”
“Mr. Chair, I will spot the minister; I am feeling generous. In 2015, it was 250,000. That is an increase of 107,000, or 40%, in the last 10 years. Are taxpayers getting 40% more out of their federal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, baseless smears like that are why the Liberals cannot be trusted to regulate speech in this country. For years, the Liberal government has been determined to censor what Canadians see and say online, from Bill C-11 , which put the Liberals in control of YouTube algorithms, to Bill C-18 , which squeezed out small and independent media, and their thought crime bill, Bill C-63 . Now we have learned through the National Post that the cabinet ministers over there are all clamouring over who gets to be responsible for the latest online censorship law. Will the minister who gets to censor what Canadians say please reveal themselves now?”
“Mr. Speaker, I send my heartfelt congratulations to my colleague in the House. My riding does not have the Rockies, which my colleague's does, but we do have a significant agricultural base, as I know his does. In his remarks, he mentioned farmers in his riding. I was wondering if he could speak to the connection he has to that and what he brings to this chamber now as he takes a role as MP.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for finally acknowledging what Conservatives have been talking about for years, which is how harmful the consumer carbon tax is for a great many Canadians. I appreciated very much his willingness to explain exactly how the increase to the price of fuel has been hurting people. I am a little confused, though, because I brought this up to the very same member last week, and he said that he defended and supported the consumer carbon tax and that it was a “victim of misinformation”. When Conservatives said what the member just said, it was misinformation, but when he says it, it is supposed to be a reflection of the government's commitment to affordability. Which is it? Was the consumer carbon tax making things less affordable for Canadians or is that just a conspiracy theory?”
“Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety accused me of editing, in a misleading way, his own comments from committee of the whole. What was out of context? He said very clearly that he did not know what a fire—”
“Madam Speaker, last night the Minister of Public Safety made some shocking admissions. He is the minister responsible for confiscating law-abiding firearms owners' guns. He does not know what the firearms safety course is. He does not even know what a firearms licence is. I invite him to come out to my local range, the East Elgin Sportsmen's Association, and learn the things he needs to know to do his file. Since the minister does not even know the basics of Canada's gun laws, will he halt the government's confiscation of firearms?”
“Mr. Chair, I will stipulate that it is the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, which all gun owners in Canada have to do to get their firearms licence. Has the minister ever done the Canadian Firearms Safety Course?”
“Mr. Chair, I was asking for the total, but I will move on and we will look at this later. When the figures were presented by the government in September 2024, $11.5 million had gone towards software, logistics and communication support. Did any of that go to any of the suppliers or vendors involved in developing the ArriveCAN app?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time, and I have some questions for the Minister of Public Safety. The minister should know that these are direct questions, and I hope the answers will be similarly direct. When does the amnesty period end for firearms banned by order in council on May 1, 2020?”
“Madam Speaker, the member opposite just mentioned he was very supportive of a great many of Justin Trudeau's policies. I wonder if one of those was the consumer carbon tax, knowing that it was in full force when he was nominated as a Liberal candidate last October.”
“Mr. Speaker, the picture for first-time homebuyers is very grim right now: 63%, nearly two-thirds, fear that they are going to default because of rising costs and the rising interest rates, which have happened on the Liberal government's watch, and 26% are using debt and credit to pay off debt. The Prime Minister may not know we have to pay off debt, but ordinary Canadians do. Canadians deserve a plan. Canadians deserve a budget that puts housing first. The government needs to listen to Parliament, listen to Canadians, and deliver a budget so Canadians can put a roof over their heads.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely congratulate my colleague on her election. I had the privilege of meeting the member at an event in her city of Kitchener before she was the candidate, and I am so glad to see her here. I know that she worked tremendously hard in the election, and I was wondering if she has any stories she could share about where we are as a country right now that stand out from the doors she knocked on and the voters she spoke to and that she has carried with her to Ottawa.”