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 8 of 14.
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on behalf of Canadians who are alarmed by what the government has claimed is a bill to protect communities of faith in this country but that would actually risk further harm to them. The petitioners who have signed this petition are very concerned about the fact that the government is trying to interject itself into the ability of people of faith to share and practise their faith and to cite their religious texts by introducing a new ability for the government to determine which texts can or cannot be uttered. This is something the petitioners are very concerned about, and they call on the government to uphold freedom of expression and freedom of religion and to ensure that government never intrudes on what people of faith are able to do in this country in good faith.”
“Conservatives stand ready as always and look forward to working to fix the broken justice system in Canada. I am glad the Liberals finally joined us.”
“Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Canadians have been reaching out to members of Parliament over the winter break to tell the Liberals to set aside their divisive and toxic Bill C-9 and to stand up for the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. I am pleased to report that today at the justice committee, we were finally able to get the Liberals to agree to set aside the divisive bill and focus on addressing real crime affecting communities across the country. Canadians have been demanding real action: fixing the broken Liberal bail system, addressing the rise in car thefts and extortion and going after people who are wreaking havoc on streets in the country, not people who dare to express a religious belief the government finds objectionable.”
“Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state is pointing fingers because she does not want to look at the millions of fingers that have been pointing at the Liberal government for allowing these problems to fester. Even today, Liberal members of the justice committee said that the Minister of Justice would come before committee only if we agreed to wave through their divisive and toxic Bill C-9 . Why are the Liberals putting conditions on transparency and accountability, and obstructing their own legislation? Why will the Minister of Justice not appear before committee, and why will he not stand up now instead of pointing fingers?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, day in and day out, to see the Liberals claim to have the solutions for the problems they have created. For the last 48 hours, Liberals have rejected 17 attempts by Conservative members to advance critical bail reforms, because they will not get off their desire to attack the religious freedoms of Canadians. Canadians want real reforms to bail, not Liberal obstruction. When will the Liberals get serious about real crime instead of thought crime?”
“Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, we open our days in prayer each day, which is a testament to the spiritual roots of this country. I am wondering if you can rule on whether our parliamentary privilege will protect us from prosecution if Bill C-9 becomes law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As members of the House are aware, we open with prayer each day, and I am hoping you can rule on whether members will be protected from prosecution by parliamentary privilege should Bill C-9 pass.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Conservatives on the justice committee tried three times to let the committee prioritize the study of the much-needed bail reforms on which it would be possible for us to have a consensus. What was so pressing that the Liberals did not want to study their own bail bill? They launched a full-scale assault on religious freedom in this country that risks the prosecution of those who express religious beliefs. Now the minister says that after passing the amendment he will start his consultations. This is the minister who said he would rather spend time with his family. Could he do that instead of censoring Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians alarmed that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 would be used to criminalize passages of the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. A lot of this concern emanates from the fact that the man who is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that prosecutors should be able to “press charges” for people citing scripture the government finds objectionable. The petitioners believe that the state has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community and that the House must stand firm and protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Petitioners call on the Liberal government to protect these fundamental freedoms and reject any incursions on them in Bill C-9 or any other legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that our motion is already delivering results. The Liberal chair has called a justice committee meeting for tomorrow to do clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9 . It is an eight-hour meeting. My question to the member opposite is very simple. Will the Liberals be voting with the Bloc to remove religious protections from the Criminal Code?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I first came here, I understood that committees were to be masters of their domains, but committees are also a product of the House of Commons. When committees fail to do their work, it must be raised in the House of Commons because there is no way to raise it on a non-existing committee meeting's agenda. I would love nothing more than for all of us to be able to have these discussions in our respective committees, but that is not possible because that member's colleagues will not have the darned meetings.”
“I think it is very important that we are discussing the motion we are right now before the House, because the Liberal government cannot point fingers regarding its agenda not being passed when it holds the keys and the decision-making authority on when to schedule committee meetings.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity yet to sit in on a transport committee meeting, so I cannot speak for what is happening there except to say that there does seem to be a pattern here spanning multiple committees. I understand the citizenship and immigration committee has no meetings scheduled for this week. At the environment and sustainable development committee, the minister has not appeared. I mentioned the lack of appearance by the justice minister at the justice committee on his mandate and priorities. The minister has not appeared for fisheries and oceans. There does seem to be a trend here.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague. We have very different ideas on some of the things that are coming before the committee, but I always know where my colleague stands. I and my colleagues on the justice committee remain ready to deal with clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-9 . We are 100% opposed to the assault on religious freedom that has been proposed and discussed, and it is shameful that the Liberals will not, in the House, state what their intention is on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a new member, I do not know how I am supposed to allow it to become law when that member's party is not calling the meeting, Again, I am new here, but I do not believe it is possible to let any justice bills become law when the Liberals keep cancelling meetings.”
“The Liberal government, if it does not want to co-operate, needs to get out of the way. Right now, the Liberals are getting in their own way and the way of Canadians, and we will not stand for it.”
“All the Canadians who are concerned about revolving-door bail and all of the frontline police officers, police chiefs and first responders who have been crying out for years for action have gotten nothing from the Liberal government. They have gotten a commitment from the public safety minister that they are going to go full steam ahead on the gun confiscation scheme, but nothing to put repeat offenders behind bars where they belong. Legislation, we understand, is forthcoming from the government to perhaps deal with the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual predators. However, again, no action is possible on that, because of Liberal obstruction on committee. I am a new member of Parliament. I came here with a mandate, and I came here to get to work.”
“The reason I put forward a motion at the justice committee a couple of weeks ago to reset the committee's priorities was that it was clear that we were headed towards exactly the situation we find ourselves in: a bill where, in the words of the chair of the justice committee before this very House the other day, there is no path forward right now. We still believe we should prioritize bail, and I would welcome the justice committee to actually call a meeting. We have two designated spots before the House rises for the winter break. I would certainly hope that Liberal members of Parliament do not want to face their constituents and say that they did not deliver on any of their justice priorities, because that is what is going to be happening now.”
“The Liberals filibustered this, preventing us from working on anything. We finally adopted that motion, and it came before the House. I am grateful for it, but we lost critical time to do everything else, again, because of Liberal obstruction and Liberal filibustering. The Liberals do not know how to govern in a minority Parliament, evidently. They do not know that they have to work with other parties. I guess the Minister of Justice tried to do this, although his way of working with other parties was to launch a full-out assault on religious freedom. That is not what bipartisanship is supposed to look like. We are still ready and eager to do the work.”
“Now, the Liberals are in turmoil while they figure out where they stand on their own legislation and amendments to it, and Canadians expecting the justice committee to work on fixing the criminal justice system have to wait while the Liberals get their act together. Similarly, earlier this fall, we passed a very critical report before the justice committee calling on the government to send a strong message that it will not tolerate judicial leniency for people convicted of peddling in and viewing child sexual exploitation and abuse material. What should have been a very quick, unanimous decision by the committee after the Supreme Court made an absolutely egregious ruling that a one-year sentence for those offences was “cruel and unusual punishment”, instead took two meetings.”
“However, when the Liberals obstruct Bill C-9 , which they are doing right now, when they obstruct their own bill, they are also obstructing every other justice priority they said they have. They have obstructed the committee's work on Bill C-14 , a bail bill, which is very welcome in that it acknowledges how bad the bail system has gotten. Although, I believe there are a number of amendments that need to be put forward on Bill C-14 so that it does what we need it to do to fix Liberal bail in this country, we cannot do any of that, because the Liberals cannot figure out where they stand on Bill C-9. When I mentioned the Minister of Justice 's secret deal with the Bloc Québécois, the interesting tidbit that came out in the media today is that he forgot to tell the Prime Minister that he was making that deal.”
“It is good to know that falling upwards, the long-standing Liberal pastime and career trajectory, is still available. (1550) This is so interesting because the Liberals, when they are faced with questions about where they stand on this, hide behind the committee process, yet members of the committee are saying, “Let us do our jobs.” Conservatives have stood ready at the last two meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to work until midnight, and resources have been available. On this issue that the government says is such a priority, to get through clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 , we have stood ready to do that even though, as I said at the justice committee and as I said in the House of Commons, we do not believe that Bill C-9 should have been prioritized above bail reform.”
“Now, what we learned in the last couple of days is rather interesting. In fact, just this morning, there was an article in which we learned that the Minister of Justice initiated a secret deal with the Bloc Québécois, where the Bloc would support Bill C-9 in exchange for the Liberals supporting the Bloc amendment removing religious freedom protections, making it so that someone could be criminally prosecuted for expressing good faith religious beliefs or even quoting scripture. This is the government that promoted the previous chair of the justice committee to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture after he said that prosecutors should be able to, “press charges” for people who quote verses of scripture that he deems to be hateful.”
“The notice of meeting for our Tuesday meetings almost always comes on the Friday before, so I suspect we are not going to be meeting tomorrow, although I would love to be proven wrong. It was interesting, just a couple of hours ago in question period, that the Minister of Justice stood up, facing questions from our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois about the government's bungling of Bill C-9 . He would not give a clear answer as to what the Liberal government's view is of the amendment that we understand is forthcoming from the Bloc to remove long-standing religious free speech protections from criminal law. What the Minister of Justice said was, “Whoa, the committee will decide this.” How is the committee going to decide anything when the Liberals are either not calling meetings or are cancelling meetings on their bill?”
“He did not want to come to committee, and has not yet responded to our invitation for him to speak to his mandate and priorities. We are seeing now that the Minister of Justice is providing the same level of excellence he delivered as the Minister of Housing and Minister of Immigration. He is bringing that to the justice file, and Canadians are suffering. Let us talk about what has been happening in the last few weeks alone. There was a meeting at the end of November that the Liberals simply did not call. There was another meeting that the Liberals did not call, and another meeting that the Liberals cancelled. As of today, we do not know if the justice committee will be meeting tomorrow at a regularly scheduled time. No notice of meeting has been issued.”
“Now, it is possible that the Minister of Public Safety is still hard at work getting his RPAL, and that is why he has not had time to come before the committee. The Minister of Justice said he would only come before committee to talk about Bill C-9 , the Liberal government's anti-hate bill. The very first justice bill that the Liberal government put forward was not on revolving-door bail and it was not on mandatory minimums for child predators; it was on cracking down on freedom of expression, cracking down on what people post online. That was the very first priority of the Minister of Justice . I will get to how that is going for the Liberal government in a moment. It was interesting that the Minister of Justice did not want to speak about bail.”
“I sent out a household mailer to the people in my riding a couple of months back, and it was about crime, justice and the revolving-door bail crisis. The police chiefs in St. Thomas, Aylmer and London, and officers with the Ontario Provincial Police, have all said the same thing, which is that they are tired of arresting people in the morning only to find them on the streets again, sometimes that afternoon. We demanded action. Canadians demanded action on bail. We were told that the Liberal government would make bail a top priority. On the justice committee, we were expecting to be able to do incredibly important, timely work on this. We actually initiated a study on bail, and extended invitations, as part of that study, to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety . Shockingly, months later, neither has appeared on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. My colleague from Barrie South—Innisfil did a tremendous job explaining the breadth of Liberal obstruction right now. There is a logical inconsistency here that I do not believe should be all that surprising coming from the Liberal Party, but they are obstructing their own agenda. The Liberals are obstructing their own legislation. I can speak specifically to what has been happening on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a committee I was honoured to be named to shortly after I was sworn in as a member of Parliament, and a committee that is very relevant to the people in my riding, for whom crime has been a top issue.”
“That is something I believe needs to be understood by those who believe this is an abstract question of legal theory and legal rights. These are real people. There are faces to this. If Bill C-218 does not pass, people will die. We have a right and a duty to stand up for those who need it. I will be proudly supporting this bill, and I thank my colleague so much for introducing it.”
“By design, this is a policy that will give up on people. There are very few things in this chamber that we can say are genuinely life-and-death issues. This is one of them. A few weeks ago we saw that, in 2024, MAID accounted for 5.1% of the deaths in Canada. That is a 1,520% increase over 2016 when it became legal. We are seeing a massive expansion to people who, in the vast majority of cases, will get better. About 50% to 60% of people with mental illness will actually recover with no treatment, and that number is even higher for people who do have treatment available. I would not be here today had I been successful. I would not be here today had I not gotten over the darkest, worst feelings of my life, which anyone could encounter.”
“Physicians have testified before Parliament and its committees that suicide is often contemplated and planned over a long period of time by people who would very easily, as I am confident I would have, go to a doctor to make a rational, logical case that they have tried all of the treatments and they believe that they are better off dead than alive. There was a consensus among psychiatric experts who have testified and spoken about this elsewhere that there is no clear way to separate suicidal ideation as a symptom from a request for a health care practitioner to help in ending one's life. Dr. John Maher testified before Parliament that 7% of those who attempt suicide die by suicide. That means that 93% of people who, at one or multiple points, want to end their life eventually get over that. The success rate of MAID is 100%.”
“It takes one person who believes in you and forces uncomfortable treatment onto you for the sake of the future life that's awaiting you.” That woman went to university, became a social worker to help others, is happily married and, more importantly, is happy. None of these stories could ever be guaranteed if we were to do what the government is doing in 15 months, which is to license giving up on people at their most vulnerable moments, at their darkest and lowest points. Of those who die by suicide, 90% are people who have diagnosable mental illness.”
“I have a wonderful husband now who means the world to me.” Another woman said she wanted to end her life many times, but looking back, she is so happy she has a life now where she is happier than she ever was before. I will share one more about a woman who described two years of agony, with damage to her liver, hospitalizations, dozens of failed medications and a compilation of diagnoses without any real clarity, but she was given a second chance. She had been labelled as chronically unstable and told she had a poor prognosis, was unable to thrive independently and would likely revolve through the system for the rest of her life. She had attempted suicide several times. There was one doctor who would not give up on her. As she said, “Recovery takes one person, not one pill.”
“A man reached out and said he struggles with personal family issues and mental illness. He has very bad days. He has tried attempting suicide before, and he is worried that he will not be stopped in the future if he has more of those dark days and MAID is available to him. On a more positive note, a woman who was in an abusive relationship for 22 years and wanted to die said, “If MAID had been around then, I would not be here now, and I am damn happy it was not.” I will ask members to pardon the unparliamentary language. She continued, saying, “I am happy now. I have had a fantastic career caring for seniors. I have grandbabies and kids I love.”
“They would have legal authority to detain me, because that is how sacrosanct it is that people have a right to recover, that they have a right to live and that medical practitioners must do no harm and protect them from harming themselves. We have a duty to help people. (1415) I talk about my own story, and I have heard so many others like it. After my colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City introduced her bill, I launched the “I got better” campaign, in which I shared my testimony and invited Canadians to share their own. I would like to share some of those in the House today. A lawyer from here in Ottawa said that they wondered if they would have used MAID if it had been available when they were in their darkest days, or if they would use it in the dark days yet to come.”
“Believe it or not, as silly as it sounds, I had it on my calendar, and I scheduled the day because I had appointments and meetings before it that I did not want to miss, as though that makes any sense at all, as though it would matter if I missed a meeting, given that I was planning on not sticking around. This is how, when a person is struggling with mental illness, as I was so very seriously, it plays tricks on them. By design, a mental illness is a distortion of the person's ability to see clearly and think clearly about what they are in the midst of. It clouds their judgment. If I had ever gone to a health care worker and said, “I am planning to end my life,” they would have not just a moral but a legal obligation to stop me.”
“I actually had access to resources and treatment. I had a support system. I had a family who loved me. I had these privileges that so many others who struggle with mental illness did not have. Even with all of those available to me, I felt like there was no future. The proverbial light at the end of the tunnel did not exist. I did not want to get better. It was not that I had not tried; I had not tried enough, clearly. However, I felt like I had done my time. I felt like I had put in enough effort to try to get better and when I did not, I had made my decision that I was going to end it. It was not impulsive; it was quite rational, actually. I decided it weeks out.”
“This is a profound expansion and a fundamental inversion of the message that we have spent so much money and so much airtime and so much effort and energy telling Canadians for years, through countless campaigns aimed at ending the stigma surrounding suicide; through more programming, funding and resources to support people with mental illness; and through campaigns telling people that they are better off alive, that they do have a future. They are efforts that we all extend in our own lives to those around us to give messages of hope to those who need it. To put a fine point on this, and to make it personal, because it is personal, if the laws that are coming into force in 15 months had been there 15 years ago, I would probably be dead right now. I say that with full gratitude that I am not. I did not want to extend a cry for help.”
“I think of my own experience and the experience of many others like me when I reflect on the fact that in just 15 months' time, someone who was in the place I was in 15 years ago will be able to have not only the state's permission but the state's help to end their life by suicide. In March 2027, the criteria for medical assistance in dying are expanding, so someone with only a mental illness, with no physical ailment whatsoever, will be eligible for MAID.”
“There are many reasons I am so proud to be standing here in this chamber, but one of them is knowing where I have been and where I came from and the fact that there was a time in my life when I never in a million years would have believed that I could ever have the life I have now: a career that I am proud of, an amazing wife whom I love so dearly, these tremendous colleagues and friends I work with every day, and this trust that has been placed in me by the people I represent. None of that would have been possible had I been successful when I attempted to end my life.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise and speak to Bill C-218 . In less than a week, it will be 15 years since I almost lost my life to suicide. I overdosed. I was in the hospital for seven weeks. For much of it, I was on life support and had to be resuscitated multiple times. Over Christmas, my parents did not know if they would have me as their son, moving forward. It was the culmination of a very dark time in my life that spanned many years, a time in which I felt at multiple times, although not as seriously as I did that horribly dark and sad December day in 2010, that I would be better off dead than alive.”
“Mr. Speaker, groceries are so expensive that Canadians cannot afford the baloney the Liberals are selling. What the average Canadian family will have to spend on groceries this year is $17,500. A single parent in my riding making minimum wage would need to work 1,000 hours, half their year, just to put food on the table for their children. This has doubled since the Liberals took office in 2015. The Liberals may not do their own grocery shopping, but Canadians do and they cannot afford it. I have a simple question for the parliamentary secretary: How much is a litre of milk?”
“Mr. Speaker, the latest food price report confirms what Canadian families were well aware of, that grocery prices are still going up. The average Canadian family will spend an additional $1,000 on groceries next year, and this is seven months after the Prime Minister said Canadians would judge him by the prices at the grocery store. Well, that is what Canadians are doing, and they are wondering why the Liberals are increasing their industrial carbon tax, which makes it more expensive to grow, ship and sell food. They are wondering why the Liberals are not stopping their inflationary spending. We have given Liberals the solutions. Will they please steal these ideas too?”
“So far, Harvest Bowl has served over 20,000 bowls of soup, and it is not slowing down. I thank the farmers, producers, volunteers and community partners that have rallied behind what Donna and Harvest Bowl have created. This generosity is the very best of Elgin County, and it shows what is possible. Ladles up.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Harvest Bowl, a tremendous initiative in Elgin County that tackles reducing food waste and food insecurity. Harvest Bowl collects food such as vegetables from local farms that would otherwise go to waste and turns it into delicious and nutritious dehydrated soup mixes. Harvest Bowl founder Donna Lunn and her incredible volunteers distribute thousands of soup mixes to communities and agencies across Elgin—St. Thomas—London and the surrounding region. Today, in just a few hours, Harvest Bowl supporters and volunteers will gather in Springfield to sample some of its delicious soups, and, more importantly, to start delivering food to people in need. This is made possible by our amazing farmers who work to ensure that their harvests do not go to waste.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Yesterday the Liberals got up in question period and accused Conservatives of obstructing work on Liberal Bill C-9 , which takes aim at religious freedom and freedom of expression. The Liberals said they wanted to conduct clause-by-clause review today, but this morning, the Liberal chair cancelled the meeting, obstructing the Liberal government's own agenda and denying our right as legislators to do our work. Why did the chair cancel the meeting, and will he commit to calling our scheduled meeting on Tuesday, so we can get to work?”
“It is not for us in the chamber to legislate, govern or regulate what Canadians with deeply held religious convictions say. Again, it is certainly not in the government's purview to define hate in a way that tramples down the liberties of Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for all she has done to champion the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, and certainly those of faith. What is so important here is that this legislation was brought in under the guise of protecting religious communities from hate. That was how the Liberal government sold this legislation. However, the most vocal critics of it have been religious individuals and groups themselves, who now see the devil, pardon the pun, in the details that will be used to crack down on religious expression. The point I will make is that politics have no place governing legislators or what is said at the pulpit, whether we are talking about Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else. We need to stand up for all people of faith.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a disgusting misrepresentation of what people of faith stand up for and do for this country every day. It is this rhetoric to which the Liberal government has decided to hitch its wagon in pushing forward with this amendment. Violent rhetoric, regardless of whether it is cloaked in religious belief or not, is inexcusable, already illegal and not subject to the religious defence here. When prosecutors do not charge people for inciting violence, it is a lack of political leadership.”
“Madam Speaker, when I was young, I said a great many things I regret, have paid the price for and apologized for. I was proud to stand in the House yesterday and support the bill of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola to put in strict penalties for people who commit intimate partner violence. However, when the Liberals engage in this cancel culture game, they are proving why they cannot be trusted to hold the authority to put people away for what they say.”