Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
This evening's debate deals with something that I consider to be fundamental to the way I participate in politics. I became a full-time politician a number of years ago now. I am truly proud of that, because it gives me an opportunity to actually help resolve some of my constituents' problems.
However, it is in my role as a legislator that I rise to speak in this debate. I would like to go on the record as saying that my husband has worked for SNC-Lavalin for almost 30 years now. He too is very proud of his work and of the hundreds of work sites where he and his colleagues left their mark on behalf of this major Canadian engineering firm.
At a legislator, I take to heart my responsibilities of looking out for the best interests of Canada. I also take the respect of our Constitution very seriously, which means that not today and not ever will I take lessons in good governance from the party opposite.
Theirs was the first-ever Commonwealth government to be found in contempt of Parliament. They had a number of laws deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and muzzled and controlled committees to degrees never seen before or since.
Their government was responsible for serious breaches of senators' privileges. It ignored Parliament's responsibilities for 10 years and demonstrated complete disregard for judicial independence. It came very close to destroying our parliamentary democracy.
My mother often says that I have a memory like an elephant. I rarely forget things.
I will not be preached at by Conservative MPs, or by NDP MPs, for that matter.
Canada's governing institutions were strong enough to withstand the repeated assaults of three Harper governments. They will also withstand a fiasco wholly fabricated by an opposition looking for a leg to stand on.
In my opinion, if the Prime Minister's Office tried to get the member for Vancouver Granville to change her mind while she was a member of cabinet, it was completely justified.
No responsible government could ignore the significant impact of legal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.
We are talking about close to 9,000 jobs across Canada, hundreds of active work sites, countless pensioners, and the construction of the magnificent Samuel de Champlain Bridge, which matters very much to the people of Brossard—Saint-Lambert, who waited so very long for the previous government to break ground on it.
The Prime Minister of Canada is accountable to all Canadians for his decisions and governing choices. He is also charged with making choices that best serve the interests of the largest-possible number of Canadians to the best of his abilities.
Our Prime Minister has an ambitious and forward-looking vision for our country. That means prosperity, stability, fairness, the rule of law and an environment worth leaving to our children. Will mistakes be made on the way? Of course they will. We are all fallible humans.
However, the matter before us this evening has absolutely nothing to do with mistakes. It is a hypocritical bid from an opposition with a very selective and very, very short memory.
The legal arguments in favour of a remediation agreement in the specific case of SNC-Lavalin are also, and most importantly, common sense arguments that will protect thousands of workers.