Andrew Lawton
- Born
- January 14, 1978 — Melbourne, Australia
- Family
- Married to Darcy Lawton, two children
- Education
- The University of Melbourne; Sarah Lawrence College in New York
- Career
- Film director, television director, screenwriter, and actor; owner and creative director of Kinetic Studios
- Notable
- Former member of The Victorian Boys Choir
Based on publicly available information — may contain inaccuracies
Business & Financial Interests
Before entering politics, Andrew Lawton was a journalist, broadcaster, and author. He hosted a radio talk show for Corus Radio and later worked as a fellow and host for the True North Centre for Public Policy, a conservative media organization. He has also authored a book about the 'Freedom Convoy' protest.
Key Relationships & Connections
Andrew Lawton has a documented connection to the True North Centre for Public Policy, where he was a prominent fellow and media personality before his election. As a Member of Parliament, he is part of the Conservative Party caucus led by Pierre Poilievre.
Public Controversies
Andrew Lawton has faced significant public controversy over past statements and social media posts made before he was an MP. Critics have described some of his past online comments as homophobic, misogynistic, and Islamophobic. Lawton has publicly addressed these controversies, stating that the comments were made during a period when he was struggling with mental illness and that they do not reflect his current views. He has reportedly apologized for some of the posts. His past commentary on topics such as Canada's residential school system has also drawn criticism.
Where Andrew falls on key policy spectrums
Your Money
People & Society
How We're Governed
Land & Community
How does Andrew Lawton's voting record line up with your values?
Prime Minister Madam Speaker, the only thing higher than the member's voice is the's stock portfolio this week. Prime Minister Theis delivering for Liberal insiders, not ordinary Canadians. His $2-billion heat pump announcement yesterday stands to benefit companies like Trane and Enercare. The Prime Minister's ethics filing shows that he owns shares in Trane, and guess who owns Enercare. It is
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, during Oral Questions, the topic of the 91% of assets thehas in the U.S. came up. I would like to table his ethics disclosure and seek unanimous— Some hon. members: No.
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, since thetook office, has given $7.8 billion to American corporations. This is the same Prime Minister who made a big, grand show of theatre in promoting a government policy to buy Canadian, yet since then his government has increased government contracts to American companies. They now make up one-third of what the Canadian government is
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants someone invested in Canada, why has theput 91% of his assets in the United States? This is a very real problem. Canadian businesses in my community and across this country are laying people off because the government has turned its back on them through 10 years of high taxes, high regulations and an inability to get a deal and support businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I believe the minister got her talking points mixed up, because that had nothing to do with the question I asked. Prime Minister Thelooked at Canadians and said that he was going to lead by example and his government was going to buy Canadian. Instead, he has increased, in the time he has been Prime Minister, the number of government contracts going to American
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, we have even more proof that theis all talk and no results. Just over a year after he announced his own government's buy Canadian policy, we now learn that the government has spent $7.8 billion enriching American corporations. A Prime Minister who says that we are “at war” with the United States is padding the bottom lines of American companies. He told Canadians to
C-218 Mr. Speaker, in just two days, members of the House of Commons will vote on Bill, whether or not to end the incoming expansion of MAID for people with only a mental illness. It is in that spirit that I have the great honour to present a petition from Canadians who are alarmed by the fact that in just a few months, people with no physical conditions whatsoever, with only a mental illness,
If we are trying to protect solicitor-client privilege in explicit terms, I think that Madame DeBellefeuille is right to put that in clear language. I know the Supreme Court has held in the past this is a principle of fundamental justice. This is under section 7 of the charter. It's a hugely important right. I am not a lawyer, but being in politics, I have the misfortune of working alongside
That's understandable. I appreciate you sharing your expertise on all these things. If one of your colleagues is more suited to answer my next question, that's fine. This is where my question stems from: Because a lot of the information we're talking about—let's go to metadata for a moment—is about which phone numbers have been in communication with others, that could reveal a relationship that
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was hoping Mr. Housefather would continue for a few more moments so I could finish the paragraph in Lavallee. One thing that is worth noting is that Lavallee is clear that identity can be. There is a clear statement in that ruling that there are cases where that is germane. It isn't a blanket rule that the name of a client is not privileged. We're talking about things
I hope you understand that I'm asking this question seriously: Is medical information defined, or is that term in and of itself subjective, in your view, in terms of what would constitute medical information if this amendment were adopted?
My understanding is that there is a lengthy body of evidence about solicitor-client privilege. It isn't just about communications between lawyers and their clients; it's even about the identity of clients. Am I understanding that correctly?
From what you're saying, this is not redundant. This is actually shifting the situation quite significantly, it would seem, because now there is a statutory exclusion under this amendment. It isn't just replicating what's already in law, is it?
Mr. Wong, I think you were speaking specifically, if I'm not mistaken, about the solicitor-client angle at first. You said a lawyer could object to an order, but they would not have a guarantee of being successful in that. Is it a correct interpretation of your comments that the onus is on them to prove why that privilege needs to be invoked?
I suspect I will probably have some more questions when we get to the overarching question on clause 6, but I appreciate that on BQ-5. Thank you, Sergeant.
Following on this logically, the number of people who fall into the “reasonable grounds to suspect” bucket would be fundamentally different from the “reasonable grounds to believe” number. In one, you're going to have a broader net, which means, statistically, you're going to have more people captured who are not criminals and not going to be charged, let alone convicted. C-22 Do we have any