Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jonathan Rowe

Conservative on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-04-23

198 words · 15 sentences · 17 clauses

Following a speech by Ernie Klassen (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can clarify something for my colleague across the floor. The 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. Do not just take it from me. Both the FFAW and ASP shared their concern with the member’s scheme. 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. He ignored science, consultation and the thousands of people, including those in his own province, who depend on the fishery. To hear from the people, the Minister of Fisheries launched the food fisheries survey, to which more than 9,500 people responded. It was the highest level of participation ever for a DFO survey. That is real consultation. Tomorrow, 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. We want to get this right. Our government recently published the food fishery “What We Heard Report”, and I recommend the member read it to see what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see in the food fishery. The member opposite proposed an entirely new monitoring system just for recreational fishers and would have forced Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to record their catch. How did the member want to offset those new administrative and red-tape costs? It was fees on the fishers themselves. That is not true representation. He 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”. 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. Our 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. This past year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador had no licence requirement, no licence fee and no reporting requirement. 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. 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. Our government is working on behalf of all Canadians to truly make life more affordable for everyone.”

Statement grade

C+

Average 68 / 100

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

Positioning 35%Claims 40%Procedure 8%The question 17%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 36 wordsI guess I know why the parliamentary secretary was the one reading the answer, because I do not think any Newfoundlander would be brave enough to read that and then go home and face their constituents.PositioningOff point Claims · 19 wordsIt almost seems like the member completely ignored what I just said about my bill not introducing new fees. Procedure · 4 wordsIt is right here.Procedure Claims · 20 wordsIt says the minister must “examine the possibility”. It was even in the minister’s hands. I put that in there. Procedure · 8 wordsIt is so frustrating.Off point We talk about consultation.Procedure Positioning · 16 wordsPoor old Uncle Joe and his little fish hooks are going to ruin the whole fishery.Positioning Claims · 40 wordsThere are 2,500 tonnes that come out of the recreational food fishery and over 40,000 tonnes from the fishery.¹ More fish are dying due to natural causes. One seal eats three tonnes.² Way more fish are being eaten by seals, Positioning · 17 wordsand that problem is something that the Liberal Party refuses to even talk about, let alone handle.Positioning Procedure · 4 wordsIt is so frustrating.ProcedureOff point The question · 34 wordsI would like to know if the parliamentary secretary even went to Newfoundland and asked someone involved in the recreational food fishery on a wharf outside of St. John’s what they wanted to do.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 48

8 of 15 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I guess I know why the parliamentary secretary was the one reading the answer,”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 “because I do not think any Newfoundlander would be brave enough to read that and then go home and face their constituents.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “It is right here.”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 “It is so frustrating.”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 “We talk about consultation.”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 “Poor old Uncle Joe and his little fish hooks are going to ruin the whole 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 “and that problem is something that the Liberal Party refuses to even talk about, let alone handle.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “It is so frustrating.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 55

7 of 15 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 “I guess I know why the parliamentary secretary was the one reading the answer,”A jab at the parliamentary secretary rather than an answer on the bill or fishery.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “because I do not think any Newfoundlander would be brave enough to read that and then go home and face their constituents.”A political insult substituting for any point on the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It is so frustrating.”Expressed frustration with no substance responding to the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “One seal eats three tonnes.”Shifts to seals, a different topic from the bill and food fishery at issue.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Way more fish are being eaten by seals,”Continues the seal topic rather than addressing the question asked.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and that problem is something that the Liberal Party refuses to even talk about, let alone handle.”A partisan point about the Liberals and seals, not the question on the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It is so frustrating.”Restated frustration with no responsive content.

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 · 100

0 of 15 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 2

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“There are 2,500 tonnes that come out of the recreational food fishery and over 40,000 tonnes from the fishery”The recreational food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador accounts for 2,500 tonnes, while the commercial fishery accounts for over 40,000 tonnes.search
2“One seal eats three tonnes”A single seal eats three tonnes of fish.search

Analysed on 2026-09-15