MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jonathan Rowe

Follow by RSS

Rowe presses for relief on the cost of living and for Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries: seven-day recreational cod fishing, permanent fuel-tax cuts, and a stop to French snow crab quotas off the coast. He argues by wandering into asides and stories, from “to infinity and beyond” to a family that could never dream of paying $300 for a meal. He also presses the government on spending, deficits and waste.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
82 / 100 over 32 statements
Signal 75 / 100
Relevance 77 / 100
Reasoning 76 / 100
Respect 97 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Averaged over the 32 of 36 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 36

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“The Liberals spent over $175,000 on airplane food, costing taxpayers $300 a meal for each person. Ordinary Canadians cannot afford that kind of money for a meal.”
  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Respect 58 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the silver spoon, Bay Street banker Prime Minister”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have heard this all before. This is not the first time that the Liberals wasted over $175,000 and gave the same shameful excuse for inflight catering. The reality is this trip cost hard-working taxpayers $300 for each meal for each person. Does the silver spoon, Bay Street banker Prime Minister really think that Canadians have the luxury of spending $300 on a meal? Quite frankly, I have had no one in my family ever be able to dream of paying $300 for a meal.

“Canadian families are struggling to afford food. At the same time, the Prime Minister spent $175,000 on fancy meals. Canadians should not have to pay for his food.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, while families across Canada are struggling to put food on their table, the Prime Minister has no problem putting food on his table, most of which we cannot pronounce: truffle risotto, veal blanquette, entrecôte beef with demi-glace sauce, sea bass fillet and desserts like crème brûlée to top of it all off. This adds up to the low price of $175,000. How does the Prime Minister have the nerve to stick this bill to hard-working Canadians?

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

“I am worried about this bill. Creating this new government corporation could pull us into the American military system and lead to contracts Canadians do not want.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    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, it was not very long ago that BC Ferries awarded a contract to China. That was not in the interests of the Canadian people, and most people we talked to on the street thought it was absolutely ridiculous. Meanwhile, the federal government gave billions of dollars to BC Ferries, but the Liberals just shrugged their shoulders with no regard. Would allowing this Crown corporation open the door for the Crown corporation to be sucked into the American military complex? We would then have a situation such as BC Ferries, where it would be awarding contracts that the Canadian people may not appreciate.

Private Members' Business ·

Weights and Measures Act

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“Small business owners tell me that too many rules keep them from succeeding. How should we balance cutting red tape with protecting consumers?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, when I am in my riding, I hear a lot of small business owners say that they cannot succeed or get ahead because there is so much red tape and there are so many rules. They cannot even sell a loaf of bread without all of these regulations. I am curious if the hon. member would like to speak to how we need to strike a balance among reducing red tape, having a deregulated economy and, at the same time, protecting consumers and Canadians.

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“Too many young people cannot find work. High fuel prices are hurting our economy and closing businesses where young people get their start. We need to pass this bill and permanently lower fuel costs to protect their jobs.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 30 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment is skyrocketing right now. When I was in high school, not very long ago, if someone wanted a job, they went down to McDonald’s with their resume and were given a job on the spot. As long as someone showed up for work and did a good job, they could work. Kids are coming up to me, almost in tears, saying that they applied to 130 places and put out hundreds of resumes, but they cannot get a job anywhere. This is a problem. This is a huge problem. I worked in a gold mine. People would go to college to be a heavy equipment operator, and the first job they would get was in a small gold mine. They would get experience, and they would then go out to launch their career. The issue was that this gold mine closed down at the time because fuel prices went too high. This fuel crisis is killing our economy and taking jobs away from our young people, and we need to do something about it, permanently.

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“We must admit that we are in an affordability crisis. We need to pass measures that give real relief to all Canadians, instead of only helping areas that support the government.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone knows that admission is the first step to recovery. I think that in order for the economy to recover and for things to be affordable, we need to realize it, to come to Parliament, put on our big-boy pants and recognize that we are in an affordability crisis and that we need to bring in measures that provide real relief to all Canadians, not just to the select few schools we choose in the right ridings that have red jerseys.

In response to a question from Jennifer McKelvie

“These government proposals sound like good ideas, but they are run poorly. The school food program is a good idea, but only four out of 64 schools in my riding get lunches. That is not fair.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 19 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, they are great ideas and great proposals. A lot of them seem like our ideas, but the devil is in the details. Let us talk about the school lunch program. It is a great program that feeds kids, but out of 64 schools in my riding, four get lunches. Where is the fairness in that?

“This bill pauses fuel taxes, but it does not go far enough. The taxes come fully back in April. In my province, people must drive long distances for work and doctor visits, and businesses cannot afford higher fuel. The bill should tie the tax rate to changes in fuel prices instead of bringing the full tax back.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here tonight on behalf of the hard-working people of The Eastern Peninsulas and Newfoundland and Labrador to speak to this bill, Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. When I heard the Liberal government was bringing forward legislation to extend the suspension of federal fuel taxes, I was surprised. I was pleasantly surprised, but surprised. Conservatives have been telling the government that Canadians cannot afford to keep paying more just to get to work, just to put food on the table and just to support their families, but the Liberals refuse to admit there is a problem. Even today, the Liberals voted against our motion to recognize that Canada is in an affordability crisis. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister got up in the House, looked in the camera and told Canadians that affordability is the best it has been in over a decade. Who believes that? The Liberals always refuse to admit there is a problem until we Conservatives use common sense to pressure them into doing something that is right. First, it was the carbon tax. The Prime Minister was advising Justin Trudeau when they kept adding more and more carbon tax, trying to get it to raise the pump price by 45¢ a litre. This was making Canadians less and less competitive in the business world and driving up the costs for everyday Canadians on everyday items. It was not until they needed a Hail Mary to save their skin in the 2025 election that they finally caved and did the right thing and reduced the carbon tax to zero, admitting that the Conservatives were right all along. We also saw this with housing. The Liberals refused to do the right thing and take taxes off new homes until they needed that little boost in the polls. Months after saying it would not help, they copied our idea, once again admitting we were right. What if people did not vote for such a strong Conservative Party and strong Conservative leader? We are one of the most successful opposition parties in Canadian history, driving taxation reduction from the backbenches. Once again, the Liberals finally recognized that reducing the taxes, specifically fuel taxes, can provide much-needed relief. I am glad they are listening to us again. Unfortunately, as they always do, they take our idea, but they never do it right. This bill just does not go far enough. This bill would extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel until January 31, 2027. That is great. That is 10¢ off a litre on gasoline and four cents off diesel. They can bring it on. On February 1, though, the government plans to bring half those taxes back, and on April 1, the full tax returns. What do the members opposite think will happen between January and April? Do they think groceries will suddenly become more affordable? Do they think seniors will have enough money to stop worrying about their next heating bill? Do the Liberals have some kind of magic eight ball that tells them fuel prices are going to be reduced by April? Why does this bill not simply have an escalator clause that says a certain amount of tax goes on when the fuel drops by this amount, and a little bit more tax goes on when the fuel drops even more? I think the answer is pretty clear. The Liberals want to waste time and public dollars to come here and talk about, once again, a problem they created. It is like they are a broken record or an excited parrot that wants to say the same things over and over without any real change. I come from a province where driving is not a luxury. It is a necessity. In my riding, we have communities spanning hundreds of kilometres. In just one week of travelling in my riding, I put 3,000 kilometres on my truck. We have construction workers, truck drivers and families who depend on their vehicles every day. We do not have a subway system, trains or buses connecting our communities, so people see their fuel costs directly. When someone needs to see a medical specialist, they might have to drive several hours. Members can imagine being a senior on a fixed income, trying to decide whether they can afford gas to go to a medical appointment, put food on the table or heat their home. We can imagine a young family with two children, both parents working, having to drive 40 kilometres in two different directions, now struggling to pay their grocery bill and to pay for heat. These are the realities facing people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have spent much of my working life in industries that kept the province moving. I have worked in construction, mining and the oil and gas industry. I know first-hand how important affordable energy is. When fuel prices increase, it does not just affect someone filling up their pickup truck. It affects the contractor operating the equipment, the trucking company delivering the materials and every small business depending on deliveries. These costs do not simply disappear. They get passed along through the economy, and Canadians end up paying more for the goods and services they depend on. Just the other day a taxi owner called me, frustrated and discouraged. He explained to me how the price of fuel is killing his business, and he said he cannot pass the price on to the consumer, because the people, often seniors and struggling families, who use his service just do not have any more money to spend. Construction is another major employer in my riding, but every excavator, loader and other piece of heavy equipment needs fuel. When operating costs increase, projects become more expensive. Sometimes the consumer pays more, sometimes the business makes less and sometimes the project just does not go ahead at all. This means fewer jobs and opportunities for the people who depend on these industries. Fuel affordability is not just about saving a few dollars at the pump. It is also about keeping our industries competitive and protecting Canadian livelihoods. I have spoken in the House before about the enormous industrial potential sitting idle in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have shipyards, construction facilities and mining operations, but businesses need affordable energy, reasonable regulations and an environment that encourages investment. That is why Conservatives continue to call for the elimination of the industrial carbon tax and of policies that we believe are making Canada less competitive. Conservatives have been calling for fuel tax relief for some time. We brought forward proposals in April and May, calling on the government to provide relief at the pumps, but the Liberals voted against them. Now we are debating a government bill that expands the very kind of ideas the Conservatives proposed. I guess it is better late than never, but Canadians could have had this help earlier. The Liberal government tells us that global events are responsible for many of the pressures on fuel prices. There is no question that there is some truth to that. We cannot control what happens in every country in this world, but we can control what decisions are made in Ottawa. Fuel is more than 30¢ a litre more expensive in Canada than in the U.S. This is because of additional taxes that we as Canadians control. I will finish with this one for the Liberal government: If reducing fuel taxes is the right thing to do for Canadians today, why is increasing those same taxes the right thing to do in February and April? Our construction contractors will still need fuel for their equipment. Our families will still need to bring their kids to hockey tournaments. Canadians deserve more than a temporary break. They deserve an affordable economy, affordable energy, good-paying jobs and a government that puts their livelihoods first. That is what Conservatives will fight for. That is what I will fight for.

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“Liberals say high oil prices are caused by Donald Trump and world wars. I want the member to talk about this and share our party's plans.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes I hear people across the country, especially Liberals across the aisle, say that these high oil prices are because of Donald Trump and wars around the world. Would the hon. Conservative member like to talk about these issues and what our policies are on them?

“The Liberals voted against our motion to admit that life is too expensive for people right now. Admitting this could lead to cutting taxes and gas taxes for good. I want to ask my colleague to talk more about this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we put forward a motion today. The Liberals voted against our motion to admit that we are in this affordability crisis that my colleague just spoke of. I wonder if my colleague may want to share. Perhaps admitting there is an affordability crisis could lead to a permanent reduction in taxes and gas tax, to give permanent relief to Canadians. Would he like to discuss that further?

Oral Questions ·

Fisheries and Oceans

“France is taking our crab quota, and it will cost us 60 million dollars. The minister said she was disappointed, but that is not enough. I want the Prime Minister to protect Canadian sovereignty and tell France no.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I got up here and sounded the alarm on the France crab grab, and the Liberals tried to dismiss it as fearmongering. Once they started to realize that this was a $60-million issue, all the minister did was say that she was disappointed in France’s intent. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want a government that is simply disappointed. Will the Prime Minister stand up for Canadians, stand up for Canadian sovereignty and say no to the France crab grab?

Oral Questions ·

Fisheries and Oceans

“The Prime Minister is letting France fish 1,500 tonnes of snow crab in Canadian waters. This will force our government to cut Canadian crab quotas and hurt workers in my riding. I want to know why the Prime Minister is helping France instead of protecting Canadian jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, just after this Prime Minister’s big meeting in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, French media announced that France will now be fishing 1,500 tonnes of snow crab on the Canadian continental shelf, to be caught by a French vessel and processed on the French islands. This will cause DFO to reduce Canadian quotas, harming the livelihoods of fishermen and plant workers in the riding I represent. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister more interested in cozying up with his European buddies than standing up for the livelihoods of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

Oral Questions ·

Public Safety

“The government talks about safety but does not deliver results. The RCMP needs to train about 3,000 officers a year, and the Liberals failed to deliver on their promise to train even 1,000. I want the government to stop blaming the RCMP and give police forces the tools they need.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is all talk, but no results. It is not just Liberal laws that are leaving our communities vulnerable. The RCMP has identified it needs to train close to 3,000 officers a year to maintain operations. The Liberals promised to train over 1,000. They broke their promise and never delivered. It is all talk, with no results. Are these Liberals going to blame the hard-working members of the RCMP, or are they going to stand up and finally give the police forces the tools they need?

“Crime is rising in rural Canada because the government's rules make it too easy for criminals to get bail. I want the government to change these bail rules.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, repeat offenders are causing chaos in Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canada. Residents in communities such as Carmanville are holding emergency meetings and signing petitions to have their voices heard. I know that they know this crime increase is not just because it is a sign of the times, but rather a direct result of the Liberals’ soft-on-crime policies, like the principle of restraint, which has been encouraging courts to let criminals out on bail. Will the Liberals finally listen to our communities and repeal the loose Liberal bail?

Oral Questions ·

Natural Resources

“Canada needs critical minerals for its future. The government is spending millions on projects in hard-to-reach places that need new roads and ports. It should invest in Newfoundland and Labrador instead. Places like Port Hope Simpson already have the roads, ports, and infrastructure ready to go.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Saint Pierre and Miquelon was even mentioned in that answer. I do not think that answer is very good for the next generation or very comforting to the next generation. Critical minerals, for example, are critical to the country’s development and future. It seems that the Liberal government claims to spend millions of dollars in hard-to-reach places that require huge construction of roads, ports and highways. If these are national building projects, why does the government not invest in critical minerals in Newfoundland and Labrador, including in Port Hope Simpson, which is already at tidewater, already has highways and already has the infrastructure and everything needed to succeed?

Oral Questions ·

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

“People are entering Canada from Saint Pierre and Miquelon to claim asylum. France is a safe, allied country. I want the immigration minister to explain why these people did not claim asylum in France instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I read a news article yesterday that said there are asylum seekers and claimants from Saint Pierre and Miquelon entering Canada through my part of the island. Are people coming from France, a G7 ally, really seeking asylum in Canada? Are these even legitimate asylum claims? Are folks just trying to navigate the globe to take advantage of our system? To the immigration minister, if these are legitimate asylum seekers, why are they seeking asylum in Newfoundland and Labrador rather than in Saint Pierre and Miquelon, where they landed?

Statements by Members ·

Tourism in Newfoundland

“I want people to visit Newfoundland this summer. There are many great things to see and do, and the people are very welcoming.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, summer is just around the corner, and there is no better place to be than on the Rock. Whether people want to go to Swift Current to see a world-class car collection, to Bonavista to see the icebergs, to the Burin Peninsula to hear the great stories of the famous pirates or to Lumsden to experience the best beaches north of Cuba, we have something for the whole family. If people cannot swim, they can take a boat ride to experience the whales in Port Rexton or the puffins in Elliston, or explore the secret underground bunkers. No matter where people go, I am sure they will experience the warm hospitality of my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They will hear great jokes and eat delicious meals. This summer, they might even be able to catch a cod on a Wednesday afternoon. To end their trip, they can cool down and grab a brewski in the famous town of Dildo. Come on out. Catch the ferry or take a flight and come on home to the Rock.

Oral Questions ·

Labour

“Businesses are failing and the economy is struggling. Nobody can afford a ferry strike. I want the government to step in and get a fair deal for the Marine Atlantic workers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to let that minister in on a little secret. These ferries are a federal Crown corporation. Canada has just entered into a recession. Tourism businesses across this country are still having to pay off COVID debt. More small businesses in this country are closing than opening. Insolvencies are higher since 2000. Nobody in Canada and in Newfoundland can afford this strike, including the union workers. Will this federal Crown corporation and these Liberals take responsibility, and get a fair deal for Marine Atlantic workers?

“Ferries bring food and medicine to Newfoundland, but the workers might strike in 17 days without a contract. I want to know why the Prime Minister has not made a deal.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Port aux Basques and Argentia ferries are critical to Newfoundland’s economy. They supply our food, medication and everything else. However, the union’s agreement ended in December. The unions have been fighting for a deal ever since. This Prime Minister was elected on the premise that he was supposed to be a great negotiator, the one to go against Trump, the saviour in the Trump negotiations, and yet we are 17 days away from a strike. Is it that the Prime Minister is not able to make a deal or that he refuses to make it a priority?

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

“A Liberal minister said some religious texts are hateful. I am worried this bill will lead to religious leaders being arrested for what they read in their places of worship.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I was around my riding and hearing concerns from people, a lot of people defended the Liberals, saying, “Clearly it is not their intent to ban religious texts. We are just trying to prevent hate here.” However, what is interesting is that a Liberal cabinet minister has said that there are passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful. This came from a Liberal cabinet minister, so obviously that is the intent of the government. I am wondering if the member could explain this: Should we make a list, as governments, to give to pastors and people of religious faiths so they have examples of verses that they know they are not allowed to say in churches and synagogues without getting handcuffed?