Mr. Speaker, my colleague shares the same opinion as the Liberal members from Quebec. In fact, we think the major issue facing the employees from Quebec and Canada as well as the pensioners, and even the suppliers and other third parties that provide goods and services and employ other workers because they have contracts with SNC-Lavalin, is to increase the value of the company. They understand that and we understand that. A logo cannot be put in prison.
A logo cannot commit a crime. Only individuals can commit crimes. That is exactly the point of remediation agreements.
There is a slight nuance. Perhaps my colleague could help me explain something to my colleagues opposite, namely, the notion of what seems to be inappropriate and misunderstood? Everyone keeps using the word inappropriate without actually defining it.
Would my colleague agree that entering into a remediation agreement requires a certain amount of dialogue and discussion with management, and that the complex files related to something like this probably require more than one meeting? This would help our colleagues opposite understand a little more about the reality of what constitutes appropriate dialogue.