Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of our witnesses.
I'd like to focus on you, Mr. Coles. It appears to me, just reading your testimony, that here we had a company that broke the original agreement, which was the 1905 conditional water and timber rights based on mill operation. It looks as though they also broke their obligations around the renewal in 2002. The lease was renewed, with the obligation that they would continue to operate the number 7 machine. They refused to honour their contractual commitments for severance pay, which was a negotiated agreement, as I understand it, that they then broke by going into CCAA.
In my part of the country, when somebody consistently breaks their agreements they are a deadbeat. Here's a corporate deadbeat that consistently refused to honour its obligations.
My questions will start off with this. Are we now setting a precedent that a corporate deadbeat can just go to the government and get tons of money for not respecting its obligations? I think that's something that completely flies in the face of what most Canadians believe should happen. Canadians believe individuals and businesses have to honour their commitments. Here is a case of a company that clearly didn't, so does this open the door to other corporate deadbeats using this device to get money out of the government?
I'd like to know how Abitibi got to this point over the course of the last few years.
My other concern is that the payment just seems so bizarre and irresponsible, given all of the evidence that we've had before committee. Was this some kind of ideological decision the government made? Were they trying to get back at Premier Williams? Why would the government just fork over $130 million, when clearly the company was not respecting its end of the bargain at any point and refused to negotiate with the Newfoundland-Labrador government for compensation for their real assets?