Rex Barnes

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member basically outlined some of the items that I was hoping to get into but four minutes goes pretty quickly. I will respond in saying that this is the problem: The government is allowing one year for benefits to be paid but these spouses need that money not only for one year but until the time that they move on to the other world. Why has the government allowed for one year only?

What are the spouses going to do? Are they going to sit back and go on welfare? No. We as a country have to make sure that these spouses of war veterans are taken care of until they pass on. Of course, the government, in my view and in the view of a lot of spouses, said that there was a promise made to extend benefits for longer than one year, and they are only being supplied for one year.

I say to the government members that it is time that this is revisited and the benefits should be there not only for one year but until the spouses expire and move on. They deserve more than just one year, because their husbands fought for a free country and they ended up getting a raw deal from governments in the past. It is time for this government to make it right.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight to address a very important concern with regard to the benefits belonging to spouses of veterans. Of course I should say the lack of benefits with regard to spouses of veterans.

In the House I raised a question to the minister with regard to the benefits of the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit: that there was a promise made that was not fulfilled. Of course the hon. member who was the minister at the time and who is in the other House now worked very hard to bring dreams forward with regard to veterans in general and their spouses.

As a result of the things that were said, the reason we all agreed that this bill should be passed as quickly as possible was that it would provide much needed benefits to our veterans and the survivors of our veterans. This is all in line with regard to the Newfoundland Foresters who were overseas and the spouses of veterans of that unit and other units.

In speaking to many spouses of veterans, they have made it quite clear that a promise was made and not fulfilled. Now is the time for government to compensate the people of Newfoundland, the Foresters' veterans' spouses, and it is time for the government to act immediately to make sure that the spouses of veterans can continue their lives in a respectful manner.

I have received a fair number of calls from an 85 year old lady who is the spouse of a veteran. She is a widow. She is always calling and wondering when she is going to get the money that was promised to her. We are talking about an 85 year old lady who has done her job for the government and for Canada, for our country. Of course we do not look at what the spouses have done for veterans. All we look at is the fact that veterans played an important part in society when they fought to keep our country free, but of course when the veterans returned, the spouses played an enormous part in making sure that the husbands were healed and nourished and lived some type of normal life.

We know that war at that time was a very hard and cruel thing to be involved with, and it even took a very long time for benefits to go to the veterans. Of course thanks to the hon. member who is in the other place now, they have seen some benefits. Now it is time for the government to move forward with the promise that was made to the spouses of the Newfoundland Foresters unit that they would be compensated for their part in the war. The spouse's part in the war was to take care of her husband who came back and the government's part in the war was to ensure that their lives would continue in a reasonable manner.

Benefits are very low. If someone makes a certain dollar value, that person will not receive anything. As a result, there are a lot of veterans' wives out there right now who are struggling from day to day. I think it is very important for the government to ensure that the promise that was made be kept so that spouses can benefit and live normal lives and that a reasonable dollar value be given to them so they can ensure that they can live a suitable life until they pass on.

[National Defence Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise today on an issue of such importance to the men and women of our armed forces.

The legislation we debate here today has as its pith and substance the modernization of military justice. It is an attempt to better harmonize the rules of legal procedure that guide the administration of justice for the Canadian armed forces with the laws of Canada in their civilian application.

Perhaps the House will permit me this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the office of the Judge Advocate General, the guardians of justice in uniform. The JAG officers are a vital component of our armed forces and an important part of our military community. They are soldiers on the front lines of the law and in a field of practice that is often as hazardous as any endured by the infantry, the artillery and the armoured corps.

The men and women of the JAG office frequently are deployed to the most dangerous places on the globe, tasked with the mission of ensuring that justice is done. Bill C-35, hopefully, would help the JAG and military judges in all their important work.

The legislation has two distinct components, both of equal importance. On the one hand, the legislation seeks to better regulate the rate of pay for military judges. On the other hand, it clarifies the procedural and evidentiary rules regarding the taking of bodily samples. While these might seem to be areas of limited administrative importance, they are in fact issues of great constitutional importance.

Speaking to the first area of the legislation, that of regulating the rate of pay for military judges, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated repeatedly that the remuneration of judges is a key component in preserving judicial independence.

The guiding principles of our Constitution require that we establish impartial courts for the proper administration of justice. This historic requirement has been given new life under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, it is section 11(d) of the charter that guarantees that any person charged with any offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

In light of this important constitutional principle, the courts have indicated repeatedly that to be truly independent of the executive and legislative branches of government, the judiciary should not appear to be dependent on them for proper pay and remuneration. To be certain, there must not even be the appearance that their decisions could be affected by changes to their rate of pay.

Given this explicit and important link between the remuneration of judges and the constitutional right to an independent judiciary, we in the House have a very serious and clear obligation to monitor any legislation that would seek to affect the rate of pay of judges. Given that this protection has been extended to all citizens, let it be especially so for the most courageous citizens in our country, the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.

That Bill C-35 seeks to ensure that changes to the Treasury Board guidelines have retroactive effect is therefore an important amendment. That the pay of judges, in this case military judges, is a matter of a formula and not the product of negotiations between branches of government is of clear and undeniable importance.

The bulk of the legislation, however, relates to an area of equal importance, and that is the proper legal authority for a peace officer to take samples of bodily substances

I know that I do not need to convince my colleagues here today of the importance of forensic science in the administration of justice in the 21st century. The vast potential of science has been an invaluable partner in the area of criminal investigation for more than a century but it is the constant advancements in the area of DNA analysis that has been the biggest boon to criminal investigation since the discovery of the fingerprint.

As in all areas, the evolution of science must walk side by side with the continued stability of our rights and freedoms. Given the tremendous weight given to DNA evidence in criminal procedures, it is vital that there is administrative fairness in both its collection and analysis.

Both sections 7 and 8 of the charter offer protections relevant to this discussion.

Clause 7 protects life, liberty and the security of the person. It ensures that any intrusion into the right of the person with respect to their body, a fact that includes bodily samples, is minimal and only in accordance with a proper legal authority.

Clause 8 protects against unreasonable search and seizure requiring that only a properly executed and lawful warrant can compel an accused to submit to a search or have his or her property seized.

Bill C-35 seeks to give greater clarity to the issue surrounding the taking of body samples. I believe that given the greater constitutional importance attached to it, we have an increased burden to put the bill under a legislative microscope. I have great confidence that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs will do so clause by clause, analyzing all the legislation.

I have spoken at length this afternoon about the important considerations that have been outlined by the courts of the country with respect to the proper application of the Charter. I know I do so at a time when some in our country, indeed many in the chamber, are concerned about the role of the judiciary in the development of the law. The debate is one of great importance and significance to all of Canada.

I believe that both sides and all parties in the House will agree that we have a special duty as lawmakers to ensure that the legislation we pass is not only lawful but also good law. We have here an important obligation to not only improve laws but to improve lives.

When we debate an amendment to existing legislation, we have a duty to ensure that we consider whether the lives of those affected will be improved as a result of our action. To that end, I hope we would all agree that our duty extends to ensure that we consider the potential legal ramifications of our actions in relation to decisions we have seen passed by the courts of this country.

I am the first to recognize that the administration of military justice is different than that of the administration of civilian justice. Those differences speak to the unparalleled importance of our military and its function in the world. They are a reflection of the commitment of our men and women in uniform who have made Canada.

If it can be said that they have a sworn duty to protect us, surely then we must say to them that we have a sworn duty to protect them.

Although the bill in the consideration of the House speaks to military justice, not military funding, it would be remiss of me today in my duties if I did not mention and declare a continuing need for better funding of our military.

Between the 1993-94 fiscal year and the 1998-99 fiscal year our military budget fell 22%, from $12 billion to $9.4 billion. In the same period the operational tempo of our armed forces, this is to say that the ratio of time spent on deployed missions, rose from 6% to 23%, an increase of almost 400%.

The funding gap has hurt our military. Members of the military are required to use equipment that is 30 to 40 years old. They are restricted in the amount of training they can received. They are limited in their potential, not by their courage, not by their compassion or not by the commitment of the personnel, but by the scarce resources at their disposal. We have let them down. The government has let them down.

We speak today about improving military justice but we should be talking about doing our military justice by ensuring that the members of the military have the tools and equipment necessary to do their jobs.

Some of the Liberals on the government benches, perhaps most noticeably those either currently or formerly part of the cabinet, have recently begun to call for better treatment of our military. The former finance minister has even called for an increase in military funding, notwithstanding that he was the one with the hand on the knife when the government made vicious cuts to the DND budget. Better treatment of our military should be a firm commitment, not a campaign promise.

In closing, if I had my way, we would spend a portion of each day debating how we can improve the conditions of our military and its personnel.

While Bill C-35 addresses important issues, it does not address all the important issues facing the Canadian armed forces. We have much work to do here before we rise and I hope that the rumours about leaving early are false, especially at a time when we are prepared to send so many of our men and women to serve in a dangerous and unstable part of the world. That of course is the height of hypocrisy.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I know there was a fair amount of controversy in Ontario when the NDP government brought in some good legislation with regard to scabs. I think the labour movement across the country rejoiced in the fact that they had a premier that would do something for employees, as well as employers, because they work together.

As far as I am concerned I firmly believe Canada should make it quite clear to all employers across the country that it will not tolerate replacement workers taking the jobs of people who are on strike. If that were to happen, it would send a clear message to all the countries in the world that, yes, we may have disputes in our workplaces but we have put a mechanism in place that will resolve the situation fairly and equitably, not only for the employer but for employees, so we can do great business in the country and allow it will prosper.

Canada will prosper if we have a situation where everyone is happy in the workplace. Yes, differences of opinion happen because we all have different ways of doing things, but I think Canada would be a better country if all provinces followed suit and established anti-scab legislation that would prevent replacement workers.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador always rally together to make sure their voices are heard. The way they have done that is by always forming a union. It is probably not a dissimilar situation to what we find in Quebec.

However I have never had the experience of knowing a company that was on strike that brought in strikebreakers. I think the people in Newfoundland and Labrador are different from everyone else in the country. We understand that certain things should not happen. However, for some reason or other, when there are strikes in some provinces they only care about getting them settled.

I think the employers in Newfoundland and Labrador are more sensitive to the needs of the people and our people are really sensitive to the needs of employers. Most important, we try to do things differently to make sure there is a process in place so we do not have to entertain strikebreakers. I know that in some parts of the country that happens and it is unfortunate. As a result , as the hon. member has said, it causes walkouts that are probably prolonged for longer periods of time, which does nothing for the company, nothing for the morale of the employers and employees, and nothing for the economy of the country.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem Canada has had over the years is that we are always looking at the United States. The United States is not an area we should be looking at for any guidelines for Canada. As far as I am concerned, looking at U.S. guidelines for Canada is what has put this country in trouble.

Everyone has the right to work and of course if legislation were brought forward we would have to look at it to see how it would help our Canadian workers. However I will not answer the question yes or no because I would need more details.

As I said before, we are Canada. We should build our own parameters and our own guidelines for our country to satisfy our own workers and the companies we represent.

We should not be looking at the United States. The United States does not have good legislation when it comes to certain things in its country. We can just look at health care. Canada has the best health care in the world and the U.S. does not. As a result of that we hear all these horror stories.

If something like that were brought forward it would be interesting to see if it would be positive for Canada. As it stands right now, it will take a lot more detail and discussion to determine the pros and cons. If the hon. member has more information I would have no trouble looking it over and getting back to him with a suitable answer at another time.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Bloc opposition day motion, the motion which asks this House to “recognize the urgency of amending the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of strikebreakers”.

I have spent 22 years in the labour movement. One of the hardest things when we go on strike is to have strikebreakers. That is an ugly word, but it means having employees replaced by other people to do the jobs employees should be doing. Of course it sets up an unfair balance in the workplace, especially when the time comes to finalize negotiations.

Let me state very clearly from the outset that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada certainly feels that unions on the whole play a very important role in the country in assuring that the equality of employees is maintained and upheld and as such play an important role in helping to preserve an important part of our country.

However, the PC Party recognizes that the motion attempts to address a very serious matter yet in doing so leaves much open to interpretation and provides little in the area of specifics.

The big thing we have to realize is that we as a body and as government members should never encourage replacement workers, strikebreakers, scabs or whatever we want to call them, to take over from regular employees who are providing serious labour and a serious employer-employee relationship. It has a major impact on the way business is done. If employees and employers are not happy together, production goes down and when production goes down everyone loses. The company will probably lose money and benefits are lost. The company ends up failing, closes up the shop and employees are unemployed as a result. If there were legislation to ensure that there were no strikebreakers allowed, then I firmly believe, from my past experience, that we would see employers having to negotiate fairly. If they do negotiate fairly, they of course I think they will come to a resolution very quickly.

It is very hard sometimes when both parties are apart, but all this does is cause tempers to flare: People get frustrated when replacement workers go in to basically do their jobs. That does not resolve anything. It just causes bad feelings and that is when we get trouble on the picket line. The key is not to cause trouble on the picket line. Picket line trouble comes when other people are in there doing the jobs the employees should be doing. Employers are then of course targeted to make sure that they get the message. We cannot blame the union people and we cannot blame the workers who on strike, because they are fighting for their survival.

In every strike there is an important lesson to be learned on both sides, the employer's and the employees'. In most cases, if not all, solidarity is particularly important in disputes involving workers at the bottom of the jobs and the industries are notoriously difficult to unionized workers. Solidarity within the labour movement when there are strikebreakers involved is stronger than anything we will ever see. People will not tolerate that. People will not tolerate having their livelihood sucked away. When the strikebreakers go in, all of a sudden war breaks out on the picket line. When war takes place on the picket line, someone gets hurt or injured. Tempers flare for one reason or another, and someone could die because we did not do our job to ensure that there is a fair and equitable process to make sure that union and management provide a certain level of negotiations, and that each individual has the right to make sure they get a good agreement.

Of course sometimes it is the same thing when people are not unionized. There are a lot of groups who are not unionized and sometimes they walk out. As a result, people get threatened. They basically are told, “If you threaten to go into the union or if you threaten to leave work or protest like you doing, we are going to replace you. We are going to fire you”. There should be protection for these people, too, but for some reason or another we do not do that, and as a result I think the system fails.

Of course we can all sit down and look at what is being said. I think it is very important that this go to committee. I think it is very important that we not be afraid to discuss this issue. For some reason or another, we at times do not want to talk about situations like those we are hearing about in the House today. There is nothing wrong with sending this to committee so that we can sit down and look at the pros and cons of why and what we are doing. We are supposed to be here to try to make life much easier for people, but if we allow strikebreakers to exist in our society today, then of course we fail the people we are supposed to represent.

It goes without saying that employers, both small and large, but in most cases small, are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. A good majority of rural employment is due to small businesses that operate in ways that make them the focal points of their communities. The local sports store, the local shoemaker and the local corner store in small communities not only keep the communities going but they also provide a source of employment to the residents, to their families and to the local economy.

That being said, in most cases these unions can have a very damaging effect at times, but at the same time they can have a positive effect because then of course there is unity. People might say that this is no good, but I firmly believe that if people have unionized workplaces, if people have that action to take against an employer, what we see are better relationships and stronger communities. Communities will exist far beyond if people can work in an environment that is satisfactory to everyone.

If areas of the country allow certain things like strikebreakers, all we have is total chaos in the system. Communities lose, employees lose and companies lose, because the key is to make sure there is a good atmosphere so that employers, employees and the community work together to make sure that everyone survives.

It is very important, as I said before, that we not be afraid to move forward. The hardest thing to do is sit back and let certain things happen and say that people deserve this or that. The time has come when we as politicians should stand up and be counted to make sure that we send the correct message, which is that if people are in a unionized field or a non-unionized field, there is a level that should be maintained. People have to live and have respectable wages. People have to make sure that if there is a dispute there is a mechanism put in place to make sure they can have free and open negotiations.

But if all of a sudden the company can bring in strikebreakers, then of course it will do nothing to make sure that the employees are taken care of. It could cause longer strikes as a result, and it does nothing for the economy. It is very important that we move in the direction of going to second reading so that people can have the ability to make sure that their rights are being freely done and freely heard about. It is very important that we as government send a message that we will not tolerate strikebreakers.

I will close by saying that I have never had the opportunity, as a unionist for 22 years, of being faced with strikebreakers, but I will say right now that I was on the picket lines a couple of times in those 22 years. The worst case scenario is to have people going across the picket line to do one's job and just going in there to aggravate. We have been fortunate over the years that we did not experience it, because we had legislation in place that basically gave us the right to negotiate fairly and to have a settlement so that we as a group could feel that we had been heard and our problems had been resolved.

If we ended up having strikebreakers, we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans, would not tolerate it. We are the type of people who stand up for our rights and who fight to our last breath. If it is trouble people want, it is trouble they will get. All that strikebreakers do is bring discontentment to the picket line and discontentment throughout the whole process.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

--at least admit it and tell them that is what it wants.

If that is the problem, let us deal with it head on but do not go around behind the scenes doing these little things which turn into big things and still they do not know where they are going.

There has been a lot said here tonight. I know there will be a lot more said, but at the same time we have to remember one thing. Families are going to be hurt. This is the personal side. Businesses are going to be hurt. Communities are going to be hurt. I do not have the answers to help them out. I do not think a $25 million package is going to help them out as it should. It will help out in the short term but not in the long term.

I firmly believe if the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not revisit the decision, the minister should resign his post because he has not done justice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The six MPs, excluding the minister for ACOA because he is in cabinet, but he should follow the six Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and stand firm and say this is not good enough for our people. We want this looked at again to come up with a different plan.

What should be implemented is the all party committee plan. We believe that is the plan that is going to work. We spent time preparing it. It is time the federal government started to listen to the people who know what the people feel they deserve. We know the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If it does not work out, then it will be our fault. We will have failed. But right now the minister has failed.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. I know that I am the last speaker in the debate. I tell clergy people all the time to say a prayer for Canada, but say a prayer for the fishermen and the minister. He is going to need every prayer we can give him because this is not over yet.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

He should be ashamed of himself.

People in Newfoundland and Labrador are very concerned that the federal government is not listening.

We look at the seals. We are going to spend $6 million to understand what is going on with seals in relation to cod. Anyone in their right mind knows right up front what seals and the cod are doing, and if they do not they probably should get a bit of a history lesson about where it is going. Right now spending $6 million on research in that area alone is a total waste of the taxpayers' money. The federal government has no plan and, as a result of that, it does not know where it is going.

I can tell the House what the federal government should be doing. How are we going to reduce that whole seal population? We know how seals are born. I would have had a lot more respect for the federal fisheries minister if he had said on the day he announced the closure of the cod that he would give the offshore boats a quota to hunt the adult seals. That would be the way to start reducing the population.

We are going to have to start with the adult seals, but not just slaughter of the adult seals for the sake of it. What we need is a plan of how we would use that product for the betterment of the people in the country and the world. Of course the hon. member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception has said on numerous occasions that there is a way to do that and a way to use it. It is new technology. The meat is processed and used in a capsule form for people who need a supplement. It is a supplement that could be used for people all over the world, for children who are starving. We give all kinds of foreign aid to poor African nations. We send all kinds of money and food over there. This could be used as a supplement. We have the resource. All we need to do is use the money for technology and develop it so we could make a product to send overseas that would help people with regard to the powdered form, the protein.

However, we did not do that. I do not think we will ever do that because people do not want to do it for some reason or another. These are the things that we should be doing. We are sending all kinds of money over there, so why not send a supplement that could be in a powder form? The hon. member from Newfoundland and Labrador has talked about this several times. Memorial University in our province has the ability to do it, from what I understand.

But we do not want to do what is right. We either want to do things for political reasons, or because of foreign overfishing we do not want to tackle the true problem.

As a result of that, we are more concerned with neighbouring countries than with worrying about our own people in our own country. What we need to do is one of the other things that was forgotten, which was unfortunate. When the minister closed the fishery he never looked at early retirement packages, he never looked at extension of EI for plant workers at the present time, and he did not look at licence buyouts. There are so many more options, and if they had sat down and listened they would have done a better job.

Of course we are here now trying to get the minister to listen to some common sense. Hopefully he will take what has been said in the House tonight and put some of it back into an action plan. At least now we can say he has listened. When he gave his speech tonight I know that a lot of MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador were actually shocked to hear that it is a done deal, that he does not want to talk about it anymore, that it is a done deal. But the done deal is not done until the people themselves say it is done.

Right now I firmly believe that there is enough support in the House to make sure that the minister does listen. That is all we are asking him to do: to listen, to revisit it and to do what is right for the people. I know he is in a hard situation, but we have to do what is right for the people, and that is not closing down the fishery. He should have listened to the all party committee report because we are the ones who put our necks on the line. He could have done what was right because we gave him the idea. We gave him the right thing to do for our province, the province we live in, the province we represent, the people we see every day.

We have seven MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador, and as far as I am concerned we have no political agenda like Captain Canada, Captain Wimp, had. We have seven MPs representing people in Canada, people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and our job is to make sure that our people get the best deal possible for themselves and the federal government gets the best deal that it can give. Right now the government does not have a total plan. It has a plan that is going to be there for 18 months. Where do we go after 18 months? I do not even know if the government knows.

Only recently a lady said to me, “Rex, I don't know what I am going to do”. I said, “I do not think the federal government knows either, so let's sit back and see what we can figure out, see what the total plan will be”. She started adding up the costs for her husband to get ready for fishing and she said, “With the cod gone, I do not know if we can afford to make our payments at the bank anymore”. The cod used to give them enough to make a living, not a large living but just a living to get them on the low scale for EI for the winter. As a result of this plan, she does not know where she is going.

Another gentlemen told me, “They have taken my life away”. I said, “They will only take your life away if you let them take it away from you. We need to stand firm. We need to stand strong and we need to send a message to the federal government that we are not taking it. We are going to fight”.

And if it means that we are going to have to block highways, as they have already done in Newfoundland and Labrador, if they have to come to Ottawa and make sure that the government gets the message, the government is going to have to listen, because the people are not going to take it anymore. As it is, they are hurting today. They are not going to take it sitting down anymore. They are going to fight back like they have never fought before.

I had a meeting in St. John's after I was elected. There is a plan. I firmly believe this and a lot of people I talked to firmly believe this too. This was not mentioned tonight. There is a plan. The federal government is like a snake in the grass; it is very slimy about it because it has a plan but it is not telling anyone about it. The plan is to get rid of non-core fishermen in the province because it was not done in 1991-92 right up to the year 2000.

The first closure was supposed to get rid of people in the fishery but it did not happen. As a result, the majority of the people who are going to be adversely affected from the closure of the cod are people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are classified as non-core. Non-core fishermen are basically fishermen who hold a groundfish licence, probably for lumpfish, lobster and cod. If we take cod away from them, they will not survive because that is the only fish item that managed to get them their EI.

The core fishermen are going to hurt as well but the core fishermen are not going to hurt as badly as the non-core. Of course the plant workers depend on the cod to come ashore from the core fishermen and the non-core are not going to have work. They are going to be adversely affected.

There is one group no one ever mentions and that is the businesses which depend on fishermen to sell their product, to spend their money and basically to depend on people to continue to spend money in their communities. Businesses are going to be adversely affected. Businesses in small communities are going to be forced to close because of it.

It has been said tonight that Joey Smallwood resettled people. If that is what the government is looking at, to make life so miserable in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that it will force people away from their normal style of living--

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

It was just basically to let the people know and put him out in the forefront for his own political gain. People are not calling him Captain Canada anymore, but they should be calling him Captain Wimp, because lately he acknowledged it by writing an editorial going against his own people that he was the premier of. It is amazing. Where is this gentleman coming from? He has lost his way in life, I think. He should start researching and go back in time.