Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ernie Klassen

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-04-23

534 words · 26 sentences · 30 clauses

Replying to Jonathan Rowe (Conservative)

“Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today and to represent the members of Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. I asked a question in the House about affordability. It seems that I come into the House and ask a lot of questions about affordability, oil and gas, and a lot of other issues, and the Minister for Fisheries seems to be the one to answer, so I was surprised she is not answering the questions I have tonight. I guess I will pose them to the parliamentary secretary. My question was about affordability. I was very disappointed that the Liberal government, including the four Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador, turned down my private member’s bill to allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week. It was very surprising and disappointing, because the proposed policy was not blue or red, Conservative or Liberal, but a policy for Newfoundland and Labrador. The situation in Newfoundland and Labrador is that our recreational food fishery is not just for recreation. We do not all go out just for the sport of it, although many do. It actually feeds a lot of our families. It feeds a lot of our struggling seniors and a lot of our young people. People with big families go out to participate in it. Right now, a lot of the time, because of safety issues due to wind, people with small boats such as 17-foot ones struggle to go out. It is hard to find nice days to go out to get fish when the wind is blowing, because our season is open only three days a week: Saturday, Sunday and Monday. It is very challenging to find good weather to get out to get the fish. What is frustrating to Newfoundlanders is that people in other parts of Atlantic Canada are allowed to fish cod seven days a week. We have the same limit of five fish a day, but they are allowed to get fish seven days a week. What Newfoundlanders want is fairness. In achieving that fairness, we would actually to be able to achieve affordability for the Newfoundland and Labrador folks who want to lower their grocery bills. What is interesting is that the Liberals voted against my bill because they said it would introduce new fees. I do not understand why they said the monitoring system would require tags, so I want to read part of my bill into the record. It states: Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must, in consultation with key stakeholders, develop a monitoring system to record, by species, the number of fish that are caught, as well as the time at which and place where they are caught. The minister had the choice to make a monitoring system, and she could have made it the way she wanted. The bill did not say “tags”. It never implied tags. What I had in mind, if the Liberals had listened to my speeches or brought this to committee, was to have it be very similar to a moose hunting licence. A person would fill out an application, voluntarily showing where and when they caught the fish. The Liberals also said that the new bill would impose new fees. I just want to read this: In developing the monitoring system, the Minister must (a) take into consideration existing models and best practices across Canada; (b) examine the possibility of covering the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act; It would not introduce new fees but actually use the fees and penalties under the Fisheries Act that are currently there. It was very frustrating to hear these excuses. I am not sure why the Liberals were telling constituents and other people in Newfoundland and Labrador this. I do not know if it was because they were intentionally trying to deceive or if they just used AI in an attempt to find some excuses to convince the public that the bill was a bad one. I wonder why we cannot at least work together. Why did the bill not get sent to committee? Why could we not work together on the bill with respect to affordability? My final question is this: This summer, will the government open up the fisheries seven days a week so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can have fish in their freezer?”

Statement grade

B–

Average 72 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Procedure 3%Claims 64%Positioning 29%The ask 4%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 11 wordsperhaps I can clarify something for my colleague across the floor.Procedure Claims · 29 wordsThe private member’s bill referenced by the member was reckless and would have threatened the livelihoods of harvesters, plant workers and their families, and communities right across Atlantic Canada. Procedure · 7 wordsDo not just take it from me.Procedure Claims · 55 wordsBoth the FFAW and ASP shared their concern with the member’s scheme.¹ For those listening at home in the member’s own province, the inshore fleet, the offshore fleet, processors and ENGOs were all against his proposal and have all stated it was a bill to change science and not to fish seven days a week. Positioning · 20 wordsHe ignored science, consultation and the thousands of people, including those in his own province, who depend on the fishery.Positioning Claims · 33 wordsTo hear from the people, the Minister of Fisheries launched the food fisheries survey, to which more than 9,500 people responded.² It was the highest level of participation ever for a DFO survey.³ Positioning · 4 wordsThat is real consultation.PositioningUnearned certainty Claims · 26 wordsTomorrow, the minister will be meeting with recreational fishers, the province, the FFAW and ASP to hear their thoughts on the future of the food fishery.⁴ Positioning · 6 wordsWe want to get this right.PositioningVague promise Claims · 11 wordsOur government recently published the food fishery “What We Heard Report”, ⁵The ask · 20 wordsand I recommend the member read it to see what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see in the food fishery. Claims · 24 wordsThe member opposite proposed an entirely new monitoring system just for recreational fishers and would have forced Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to record their catch. Positioning · 13 wordsHow did the member want to offset those new administrative and red-tape costs?Positioning Claims · 7 wordsIt was fees on the fishers themselves. Positioning · 5 wordsThat is not true representation.Positioning Claims · 72 wordsHe proposed to have the government cover “the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act”.⁶ That would have meant licence fees and nobody wants those. The member proposed a new system that would have told Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they cannot catch cod like they have for their entire lives and it would have only made the fishery worse. Positioning · 40 wordsOur government understands that the food fishery is culturally important. The member opposite talks about affordability, but he would have put a Conservative tax on those who fish to feed themselves and their families, as they have done for generations.Positioning Claims · 86 wordsThis past year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador had no licence requirement, no licence fee and no reporting requirement.⁷ The idea was was just to follow the rules, be safe and fish for food. Under the member’s Conservative tax on food system, food fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador would have been forced to have a mandatory licence, pay a fee to cover additional new red tape and report every fish they caught through a new system that would also cost them money to use. Positioning · 65 wordsWhile our new government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a stronger economy, the member has been playing short-sighted political games that threaten the economy for everyone in Atlantic Canada and would have made Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for the food fishery.Off point Our government is working on behalf of all Canadians to truly make life more affordable for everyone.PositioningVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 49

13 of 17 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “perhaps I can clarify something for my colleague across the floor.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Do not just take it from me.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “He ignored science, consultation and the thousands of people, including those in his own province, who depend on the fishery.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “That is real consultation.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We want to get this right.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “How did the member want to offset those new administrative and red-tape costs?”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “That is not true representation.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Our government understands that the food fishery is culturally important.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “The member opposite talks about affordability,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “but he would have put a Conservative tax on those who fish to feed themselves and their families,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “as they have done for generations.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “While our new government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a stronger economy, the member has been playing short-sighted political games that threaten the economy for everyone in Atlantic Canada and would have made Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for the food fishery.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Our government is working on behalf of all Canadians to truly make life more affordable for everyone.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 80

1 of 17 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the point put to the member.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “While our new government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a stronger economy, the member has been playing short-sighted political games that threaten the economy for everyone in Atlantic Canada and would have made Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for the food fishery.”Turns the answer into a partisan attack on the member’s motives rather than addressing the question.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Clarity · 88

3 of 17 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “That is real consultation”The phrase asserts authenticity as a verdict without offering a source for it.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We want to get this right”It expresses an aim with no actor, measure, date or success condition.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “truly make life more affordable for everyone”A general commitment with no specific action, date or way to verify success.

Claims · 7

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“Both the FFAW and ASP shared their concern with the member’s scheme.”The FFAW and ASP both expressed concern about Jonathan Rowe’s private member’s bill on the food fishery.search
2“the Minister of Fisheries launched the food fisheries survey, to which more than 9,500 people responded.”The Minister of Fisheries launched a food fisheries survey that received more than 9,500 responses.search
3“It was the highest level of participation ever for a DFO survey.”The food fisheries survey had the highest participation level ever for a DFO survey.search
4“Tomorrow, the minister will be meeting with recreational fishers, the province, the FFAW and ASP”The Minister of Fisheries was scheduled to meet with recreational fishers, the province, the FFAW and ASP on April 24, 2026.search
5“Our government recently published the food fishery “What We Heard Report”, ”The Government of Canada recently published a ‘What We Heard Report’ on the food fishery.search
6“the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act”The member’s private member’s bill proposed covering the administrative costs of the monitoring system through fees and penalties required under the Fisheries Act.search
7“This past year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador had no licence requirement, no licence fee and no reporting requirement.”In the past year, the Newfoundland and Labrador food fishery had no licence requirement, no licence fee and no reporting requirement.search

Analysed on 2026-09-15