Publication Search

Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois is going to support this motion.

But, if Mr. Julian agrees, I would like to make a friendly amendment to the French version. Rather than saying “que le Canada fasse valoir une réserve à l'égard du chapitre 11”, I suggest that we say “que le Canada se réserve un droit à l'égard du chapitre 11”. Do you agree with making this amendment, Mr. Julian?

I see that you agree. So the Bloc is in favour of the motion.

Contrary to what Ms. Hall Findlay has just said and although it would be interesting to look at the report we are going to prepare on AbitibiBowater, the fact remains that the public at large wants to preserve natural resources more and more. The public wants the government to take measures to defend and fully protect all natural resources, especially water. Rather than doing the same thing as the government did with the motion passed in 2007, I think we have an opportunity to provide the government with more guidance and point out that things are really going in that direction.

So we are going to fully support this motion and hope that it will receive unanimous support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I would say we're making a correction to the French version rather than an amendment.

Mr. Chair, from listening to everyone's arguments, I think we have to clarify some of the things that have been said. I feel that this motion is still important. Some think it is useless and are making arguments that are not necessarily true or well-founded, in my opinion. Mr. Keddy said earlier that there can be no negotiations on trading water under NAFTA. I think it is crystal clear that NAFTA is a general free trade agreement and that means that it applies to all goods and services that are not excluded. For example, hydroelectric production, military purchases, banks, telecommunications companies and products under supply management are all sectors that are specifically excluded from NAFTA. But nowhere in NAFTA is it written that water is excluded. So we have to be careful.

I think this really confirms what a number of stakeholders came here to tell us about AbitibiBowater. As I said earlier, it is not just them, but also the public at large who are telling us to be cautious because water has to be fully protected. And NAFTA is not protecting it.

But Mr. Julian's motion is definitely aimed at preserving natural resources, in particular water, in Canada and Quebec.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sinclair, in your presentation, you said a constitutional crisis was slowly unfolding with respect to the $130 million in compensation from the federal government. You implied that the federal government was interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Could you please elaborate on how and why that crisis could get worse?

I am asking because it would behoove us to keep a close eye on this issue. As you know, Canada is currently negotiating an agreement with the European Union. And, at the very end, it will no doubt include investment protection clauses. There is a difference between NAFTA and the agreement with the European Union, however. In the case of the European Union, the provinces are involved in the negotiations, and I would imagine they will have to sign off on the agreement. But I don't think that was the case with NAFTA.

We would do well to take into account the repercussions of the situation, as you described them, would we not? Canada, if not the provinces, should exercise caution and bear in mind what happened between the Government of Newfoundland Labrador and AbitibiBowater, should it not?

Mr. McMahon, as you said yourself, your presentation was a bit on the philosophical side. As I understand it, you believe that free-trade agreements and trading systems, in general, offset the small size of our market. You also talked about a nation with full sovereignty, noting that it has its disadvantages as well. I would like you to elaborate on that a bit more.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will start off, and my colleague will finish.

Good morning to all of you. It is a pleasure to meet with you.

Mr. Coles, I was especially struck by your presentation. I found it fascinating. There are a number of AbitibiBowater employees in my riding affiliated with your union. And I want to stress the fact that, in this whole situation, several injustices have been committed against the workers. That is a side of the issue we are discussing somewhat indirectly.

I think about what this company has done in recent years. In Quebec, in my riding, senior managers shut down the Belgo plant, they temporarily shut down the sawmills in La Tuque, and they just shut down the Dolbeau plant permanently.

Employees and unions do not understand the federal government's decision to pay out $130 million to a company like AbitibiBowater. People appreciate that the industry is in trouble, and they are even ready to make concessions. But people find AbitibiBowater's actions in Newfoundland Labrador unacceptable, not even giving workers severance pay, which the government had to do. Workers at the Grand-Mère plant recently agreed to another series of rollbacks in their working conditions, conditions that were hard-won over the years.

It is unacceptable for the company to collect $130 million and not pay a thing to its employees, while those at the top rake in big fat bonuses, to the tune of millions of dollars. The company's executives have received bonuses over the past few years. People find that outrageous. I appreciate that this is a NAFTA dispute, but workers sure have trouble understanding this process when they see themselves being cheated as the executives line their pockets.

I would like to know whether you have anything to say about that.

Thank you, Mr. Coles.

According to the newspapers, there could be a possible confidence vote on March 21. That is the only issue. The Liberals want to move a motion of non-confidence in the government. Since it is still hypothetical, I guess we should go ahead and schedule the meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Stephenson.

Mr. Stephenson, you said that, aside from the chapter 11 provisions, there were provisions of international law that would allow businesses to start legal proceedings. Could you provide us with further explanations? I took notes, but...

In broad terms, does that mean that, if there were no chapter 11 in the NAFTA, it would still be possible for AbitibiBowater to file suit?

Does that also mean that chapter 11 is useless if businesses have a remedy under international law anyway? Why was chapter 11 included in the NAFTA? Is it more to protect businesses or more to protect governments?

In international trade, are you responsible for the supervision or the verification of compliance with agreements under chapter 11? Is it the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that has to oversee everything that comes under the NAFTA, the agreements, the expropriations?

So there is no list of all of the major expropriations that have taken place.