MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Andrew Lawton

Follow by RSS

Lawton presses for tax relief on daily costs: cutting all federal fuel taxes, removing the federal sales tax from used cars through his Bill C-285, repealing the streaming tax and stopping Bill C-9, which he calls censorship. He argues less by rebutting positions than by mocking people, calling a minister “the secretary of state for combatting thought crime,” and by attributing hidden motives, asking of the Prime Minister’s buy-Canadian pledge, “What is up, his elbows or his stock portfolio?”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
85 / 100 over 65 statements
Signal 69 / 100
Relevance 83 / 100
Respect 98 / 100
Clarity 98 / 100
Loses points more than most for Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.4.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×4.8 Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.3.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.7 A remark off to the side of the point.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.0 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 65 of 81 statements graded so far.

Statements 81

Statements by Members ·

Affordability

“Life is not affordable for Canadians. Parents have to give thousands of dollars to their adult children, and seniors in my riding skip meals because food costs too much. The Prime Minister says things are affordable, so I want him to tell these seniors that himself.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I may remind the House that, unlike the member prior, only my tie is red today. It is very important for us to stand up in the House for affordability for Canadians. A new Royal Bank of Canada survey found that more than half of parents with adult children aged 18 to 40 provided financial support over the past year, contributing an average of $6,151. It is not just that generation. I met with a group of seniors in St. Thomas a couple of weeks ago. One of them said that she does not eat lunch because of the price of groceries. More shocking was when almost every other senior at the table said that they did not either. This is a fact of life in Canada, the same Canada of which the Prime Minister says affordability is the best it has been in a decade. Would the Prime Minister like me to tell these seniors that, or will he do it himself?

Private Members' Business ·

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

“I support this bill. Phone companies claim to have cell service in rural areas where they actually do not. This bill forces them to report accurate coverage maps. The government must also take action to fix these dead zones.”
Official Hansard

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 from Rodney to West Lorne, Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell. Oftentimes, they do not have dropped calls because they live in dead zones where they cannot even make a call. They cannot so much as send a text message or load a web page on their phone. Obviously, we cannot have coverage everywhere we go in the country, but we look on the coverage maps that are published by many of the large telecoms companies and realize that much of what is on those maps is pure fiction. 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. Parts of it are very similar to my own riding. I know her constituents see many of the same challenges that mine do and that members across the aisle have seen in their own communities. It is something we encounter. One of the things I love the most about my role is getting to criss-cross all of these different parts of these ridings and communities where people have to be on the go. Sometimes, it is a great privilege to be in areas where no one can call me. That is sometimes a convenience. Sometimes, it is an inconvenience. I am sure that we have all had periods when the whip could not get a hold of us because we were in an area without cell coverage. Still, for a lot of Canadians, that is incredibly important. I want to explain what cellular service is, fundamentally. We can often trivialize the idea of being connected, and for good reason. In this world, we are overconnected sometimes, but we are not talking about the ability to download a game. We are not talking about the ability to idly scroll the Internet. For people in rural communities, the ability to connect to a cellular network is absolutely critical. 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. In our work on the justice committee, we heard from Liz Brown of Valora Place, which is an abused women’s centre in St. Thomas, about how domestic and intimate partner violence in rural communities can be aggravated by not having the cell signal to make emergency calls. I do not wish to be overly dramatic or alarmist, but sometimes, a lack of cellular connectivity is literally a life-or-death issue if a person cannot get a signal to make a call. That is the case not just in an intimate partner violence situation, but in any emergency. If a person cannot call 911, they cannot get the help they may need in a crisis. We also have, in general, the economic needs of travelling around rural communities. Stores increasingly want to use QR codes to load a menu at a restaurant, for example, or to redeem a coupon someone may have found. These rely on cellular connectivity that, increasingly in rural communities, is not available. One important point I will raise here is that rural communities have, for much of the last 10 years, felt very ignored by the Liberal government. We see announcement after announcement devoted to big cities. We have people in rural communities truly feeling left behind. While there has been leadership from provincial governments and, in some cases, from the federal government over the past years on rural broadband, this idea of rural cellular connectivity seems to have been almost entirely ignored. I go back to two things that I believe need to change fundamentally. One is something that I hope and am optimistic this bill could address, which is the accuracy of coverage maps. The bill would require the CRTC to establish a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile network coverage data provided by Canadian carriers. This means that when people in Sparta, Iona, Iona Station or Dutton look at the coverage areas for a company that might want their business as a cellular customer, there has to be accuracy in those maps. It is important to note that I am not talking about situations where, every once in a while, a call drops in an area. I am talking about perennial dead zones, where the telecoms companies are claiming they offer coverage, but the people attempting to use their phones there are not receiving it. That is a very important distinction. We know that there are always going to be glitches and down points. We know that there are going to be slight variances and variations in coverage from day to day. We know that the weather can affect this. We know that there are going to be technical issues on the coverage maps. However, we are talking about establishing, as a baseline, an expectation that a lot of Canadians have that they are not going to pay for a service they are not receiving, and that they are not going to pay for a service that is not available to them at all points, especially when they may need it most. It is interesting that the bill happened to come up today. Last week, I rose in the House and asked a question in question period about this very issue, which was about what the industry minister would do to ensure accuracy in telecom maps. I was very pleased that the parliamentary secretary to the industry minister rose to answer my question, but he did not actually address the substance of the issue. He talked about affordability, which again is a very important issue, but I would love to see concrete action from the government on the actual question of accuracy in the coverage maps. Here is where I hope we can go if Bill C-268 is referred to committee. The bill requires a process for ensuring accuracy, but that is only the first step. We also have to be able to expand that coverage. In that sense, I hope this can be the beginning of a longer-term discussion about not just identifying where these dead zones are, but also fixing them. I do not wish to be biased, but actually I do wish to be biased towards my part of the country, because it is a beautiful place. However, the regions I am talking about are not even insanely rural and remote areas. We are sometimes talking about communities that are 15 to 20 minutes outside of very large cities, like London or St. Thomas, which are still seeing these coverage dead zones. If we cannot have full coverage in an area as densely populated as southwestern Ontario, we are certainly not going to have it in areas of the country that are far more sparsely populated and far more rural. We know that the telecom companies have tried to respond to some of these concerns by saying that we can move ahead with satellite technology. We have seen Rogers, in particular, Bell as well, advance satellite phones as an answer to some of these problems, but again, if people are near the Canada-U.S. border, as the vast majority of Canadians are, this satellite technology is not available to them. 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 Avalon said a few moments ago, hopefully want to stay in these communities. We do not want people having to leave the place they call home because they feel they do not have the technical capabilities they need to live their lives there, to feel secure there and to feel like they can be on the go and run their businesses there. I want to see from this Liberal government a real commitment to rural communities, like the ones I have the great privilege and honour of representing. 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. This is a crucial issue, and it is one that has wide-ranging implications for the economy and business, for connectivity and well-being, and yes, even for public safety and justice. Conservatives will always stand in support of transparency and accountability. I believe that companies have a moral obligation to provide accurate information, and I believe that government, given the manner in which it regulates telecom companies, needs to do its job and ensure this. My question I would like to leave everyone with is this: We have a framework proposed here. What do we do to turn this into real action? That is what I would like to see. I appreciate my colleague raising this issue. It is about time we get some attention for rural Canada from the Liberal government.

Private Members' Business ·

Private Members' Business

“Every Liberal voted against dropping this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the whip drawing attention to the entire Liberal caucus rejecting efforts to remove Bill C-9 from the orders of the House.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“The Prime Minister makes announcements instead of taking real action. He has not signed any new trade deals, and life is getting harder for Canadians. Over two million people, including many children, had to use food banks in just one month last year. I want the Prime Minister to change his plans and fix this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Prime Minister’s announcements before. What we have not seen is real action. Again, the Prime Minister has travelled around the world and failed to deliver a single new free trade agreement, while Canadians suffer. Even the Liberals’ so-called surveillance pricing announcement yesterday will not even be in effect until at least 2028, meaning it is yet another announcement that is not delivering results for Canadians. Of food bank users in Canada, 2.2 million in a single month last year, one-third are children. When will the Prime Minister reverse course and stop driving Canadians into the food banks?

“The Prime Minister is the only leader among our allies to push his country into a recession. Canadians are struggling with housing and food bank use is at record highs. I want him to explain why he says life is affordable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is time once again. All of the G7 leaders are gathering together, and our Prime Minister has lots to talk about. He can brag that he is the only one of them to lead his country into a recession in the time he has been in office. In fact, he is the only leader in the G20 to do that. The fact that Canada is in a recession is just one measure of the way things are not going well for so many Canadians. We have families living in RVs in parking lots, we have seniors sleeping in Tim Hortons because they have nowhere else to go, and we have food bank usage at record highs, yet the Prime Minister says affordability is the best it has been in years. If this is the best, will he tell us what the worst would look like?

Oral Questions ·

Government Accountability

“Government ministers cannot answer basic questions in the House. They are not doing their jobs well, and Canadians are unhappy with them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what a mess this is. I actually feel bad for the Prime Minister that this is the cabinet he has to deal with. The fisheries minister shrugged because she did not even know what a question was about, before winging it anyway with a non-answer. The foreign affairs minister just said she is consulting to cover up three years of inaction. The public safety minister is refusing to listen to Canadians’ concerns on Bill C-22 and is hell-bent on ramming it through. I thought we actually had an overperformer with the treasury board president’s finding his notes today, but then the Liberals did not let him answer a question anyway, because he did not have the answer. Is the Prime Minister happy with his front bench? Canadians sure as heck are not.

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“Religious groups are worried this bill will not actually protect them. The government picks and chooses who it protects from hate. A Liberal member left out Christians when listing groups facing hate, even though 123 churches have been burned or vandalized in the last five years.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank my colleague from York—Durham enough, not just for his speech tonight but for his tremendous leadership on Bill C‑9, meeting with faith communities, members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Christian community, all across the country, people who have raised concerns, people whom the government says it is protecting but who feel the opposite is true. One of the comments that stuck out from what my colleague said was with regard to the selective nature of how we define hate and how hate laws are applied. I will note that, earlier in the House, a member of the Liberals gave an enumerated list of people who have experienced hate in this country, and both times he did that, he left out Christians, despite the fact that 123 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized over the last five years. As I say that now, Liberals are groaning and laughing, which speaks exactly to what I am saying. What does my colleague think about the fact that, even right now, the Liberals are laughing at the idea that Christians could be the target of hate?

“I share the minister's concerns about Jewish people being treated badly. But police are already not enforcing the laws we have against hate and violence. Why does the minister think new laws will be enforced?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful the minister is here. He and I worked at the same time in Canadian media, and I have a good relationship with him. However, his government’s record on civil liberties and freedom of expression could not be worse. He talks about the horrors that have been inflicted upon the Jewish community, in particular, and I share those concerns. I have been sounding the alarm about those concerns when there has been a failure to act in enforcing existing laws. It is illegal to incite genocide. It is illegal to obstruct someone from entering a house of worship. It is illegal to threaten violence and harm. If existing laws are not being enforced, why does the minister think these ones will be?

“I do not think there are enough members in the room to hold this meeting.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is getting a little late, but I do not believe we have quorum in the chamber right now. And the count having been taken:

“A minister said prosecutors should be able to charge people for quoting certain Bible passages as hate speech. I want to know if the government agrees with him.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a quote: “[Bill C-9] has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent. This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.” That was from the Liberal member for Nunavut a couple of months ago. I have a question for the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. Her colleague, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, is a lawyer. He said the following: “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred.... There should...be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” Is he right or wrong in his interpretation of hate speech laws applying to scripture?

“The government admits this bill limits free speech, yet it wants to shut down debate quickly. Many religious groups and over one million Canadians oppose this bill. I want the government to listen to them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the secretary of state just admitted that the government is thinking of this bill as a limit on freedom of expression. That means we are actually just debating whether it is reasonable. That is a very important concession, and it is the first time we have heard section 1 of the charter from the government in the context of Bill C‑9. I will note that the secretary of state put on notice her intent to seek closure 12 minutes after the debate on this bill began. She and her colleagues have no interest in listening to Canadians, and there are a lot of them. For example, 4 My Canada, led by Faytene Grasseschi, shares that there have been 194,000 phone calls; 1,000 organizations that have signed a declaration against Bill C‑9, representing 1.4 million Canadians; and 240,000 pieces of mail. When the secretary of state says that this is all Conservative misinformation, is she saying the United Church of Canada, the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Canadian Muslims are misinforming, or is it just anyone they disagree with? This is a very important point, and the Liberal government has refused at every stage to listen to Canadians. Will it start now?

“The rules say only a minister can make a motion to end debate. This person is a secretary of state, not a full minister, so she cannot move this motion.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Standing Order 57 says that: Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in committee of the whole, any minister of the Crown who shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his or her intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be.... It is a long sentence. The point of this is that Standing Order 57 is clear that a minister of the Crown must do it. This is the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, who does not have a department and is not the minister sponsoring the bill. I believe that the standing order does not actually permit her to move this motion of closure or to introduce this motion today.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“That member should not be allowed to speak. Under the rules, members cannot speak more than once during closure.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 57, under closure, no member may speak more than once. I believe that the recognition of the member is out of order.

“I want the House to agree to let us present petitions.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this point of order pertains to footnote 23 of section 22 of the green book, regarding presenting petitions. I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to return to Routine Proceedings for the sole purpose of allowing the presentation of petitions.

Oral Questions ·

Taxation

“I want the government to support our bill and remove the GST from used cars. Driving is a necessity, and used cars get taxed over and over again.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if we took the tax off all used goods, their talking points would be tax-free. We asked the question four times, and got zero answers. We came with a solution: a Conservative bill to save Canadians thousands of dollars by taking the GST off used cars, which are taxed two, three and even four times, as many times as the Liberals avoided answering the question. It is a very simple question: In my part of the country and for MPs across the House, driving is not a luxury but a necessity, so will the Liberals join us and take the GST off used cars?

“Used cars cost too much, and the government taxes them every time they are sold. I want the government to support our bill to take the sales tax off used cars.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we know how bad inflation has gotten in Canada. We know grocery prices are through the roof. Fuel prices are skyrocketing, and even the cars that Canadians need to fuel up are becoming more and more unaffordable for the middle class. The prices of used cars have doubled in the last seven years in this country, and the government is still putting the federal sales tax on them each and every time they are sold, sometimes collecting double, triple or quadruple revenue off the backs of Canadians. Conservatives come armed with solutions. We have Bill C-285, which would take the GST off of used cars and save Canadians thousands. Will the Liberals support it?

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

“The Liberals like to force their ideas on Canadians and the provinces. They rushed this bill through, cut debate short, and did not let important witnesses speak. What does the member think that says about the Liberals being accountable?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We disagree on many things, but he was right to point out that the Liberals have a tendency to impose their own solutions on the provinces and on Canadians. As for Bill C‑30, the Liberals cut the debate short. They refused to give important witnesses the opportunity to appear before the committee and they tried to push through ideas that they did not campaign on. What does the member think that says about the Liberals’ commitment to accountability?

Statements by Members ·

Affordability

“Food bank use is way up, and many Canadians cannot afford to feed their families. Yet the Prime Minister spent nearly a million dollars on airplane food last year. Regular people are struggling while leaders lecture them and spend money on luxuries.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadian food banks continue to see record increases. Back home, the St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank’s demand has tripled in just five years. Canadians do not need Liberal talking heads on TV or members across the aisle to tell them that we are in a recession. They feel it every day when trying to feed their families. We have two out of five Canadians struggling to put food on the table, 60% feeling anxiety about their personal finances and 40% literally losing sleep wondering how they are going to make ends meet. At the same time, the Prime Minister has spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering over the last year, a catering bill that could feed a Canadian family for years. Clearly, when the Prime Minister told Canadians to make sacrifices, he was talking about common people feeding their families and not his mile-high caviar and champagne menu. Why is it that we always get lectures and gaslighting from the elitist net-zero banker class while ordinary people who build the country are the ones who have to pay the price?

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

In response to a question from Jacob Mantle

“The Liberals have introduced four bills that try to censor people. All of these bills take away Canadians' rights. We must protect freedom and fight against the government's record of limiting it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 31 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I recall that in one of my earlier interventions in this House, I wanted to do a history of Liberal censorship, but I had only 20 minutes and I knew I would run out of time. We have now seen four iterations of the online harms act: Bill C-8, Bill C-22, Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. It may sound like I am rhyming off numbers in a bingo game, but all of these bills would restrict the rights of Canadians. I mentioned censorship, and the Minister of Public Safety appeared. It is like Beetlejuice. At the end of the day, we all have to stand firm for freedom in this House and this chamber. We need to fight against 10 years of a Liberal record of pushing against it.

In response to a question from Ellis Ross

“I want the Liberals to vote for this motion. The government should never force its beliefs and values on people.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 36 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to work alongside my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I have been such an admirer of his work for a great many years. I look across the aisle, and the eye rolls I see and the giggles I hear make me think that perhaps we do not have a huge amount of faith that the motion will succeed, but I hope that the Liberals who are not perhaps listening to this right now will do the right thing. My colleague has made some tremendous observations, in and out of the chamber, about the government’s history with indigenous peoples, and this is something I value learning more and more about. I think the takeaway is that regardless of someone’s beliefs, regardless of their identity, the very worst thing the government can do is impose its value system and its belief system on them. That is what we need to stand up against quite firmly and irrevocably.