Debates of Feb. 28th, 2019

Alleged Interference in Justice System

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments at the outset.

First, there was no evidence of any criminal behaviour. That was actually the testimony from the former attorney general yesterday.

Second, let us be clear, for the record, that any attacks on the character of the member for Vancouver Granville are completely unacceptable. That was stated by the government House leader today. It was stated repeatedly by members and by me in this House last week, and I will state that again on the record.

Third, with respect to sex trafficking in Libya, that is obviously, clearly unacceptable to any member of Parliament.

The point I want to raise with respect to the speech by the member opposite is that he has again indicated that we are talking about the context of these remediation agreements. Let us be clear that what the remediation agreements seek to do is hold responsible those who have actually made decisions at the corporate leadership level and render not responsible those who were not responsible for wrongdoing, such as employees, customers, pensioners and others. I would put to him that this is exactly why these agreements have been incorporated in five of the G7 nations. Does the member agree that these are a useful tool for ensuring that those not responsible are not held accountable for corporate wrongdoing?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am a little taken aback by the comments made by the parliamentary secretary. I happen to have some respect for him. I know that he is a lawyer. In that regard, I am taken aback that he does not seem to see what has happened here.

We have a director of public prosecutions who made a decision that it was inappropriate, having regard for the factors in the Criminal Code, to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement. A notice was sent to the former attorney general. She looked at the issues. She looked at the law, and she made the decision that the decision of the director of public prosecutions was the correct one and decided not to intervene. What happened from there was a concerted effort on the part of the Prime Minister to obstruct justice. That is the issue. That is corruption. That is breaking the law, and people do not get to do that in this country, because we are a country based upon the rule of law, something the Prime Minister clearly does not respect.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member says those things in here. I highly doubt he would say them in the foyer.

The hon. member mentioned—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, they are very excited about what I have to say.

There were 10 meetings over four months, four of them in person. I can say that when it comes to jobs in my riding, I would take 10 meetings over four months. I would listen to everyone who had an opinion. There are 9,000 families in this country that rely on this business.

My question is about the Shawcross doctrine. Lord Shawcross, in explaining his doctrine, said that it was the obligation of attorneys general to consult with their colleagues. Does the hon. member agree with that? Why would he not do that, when 9,000 families want to know the answer?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, everything I have said in this House I will say outside, and I have been saying it outside in the halls.

As far as the Shawcross doctrine goes, the member for St. Catharines is simply wrong. It does not say that attorneys general are obliged to consult with their cabinet colleagues. It states that attorneys general may consult with their cabinet colleagues in the direction of the attorneys general consulting with their cabinet colleagues, not their cabinet colleagues consulting with them.

However, what we saw was not consultation. At all these meetings, by the way, when the former attorney general said she had made her decision, what new information were the Liberals providing her? What new evidence were they providing her? Nothing. What they were doing was simply threatening her and talking to her about partisan political considerations. She kept saying that it was wrong and she was not going to change her mind. The Prime Minister said, “Fair enough”, and she was fired so he could bring in a new Attorney General to be his lapdog. It is a disgrace.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, it is troubling that we have to be here this evening on this subject. For Canadians watching, we are not talking about remediation agreements. We are talking about a constitutional crisis. We are talking about a crisis of leadership in this place and in this country. It is very concerning.

Across the country, on the editorial pages today, from many non-partisan sources, we heard great concern. We heard, in fact, from a former judge, who said, “It’s fair to say it’s a constitutional crisis.” From the former Liberal Ontario attorney general we heard, “It opens the door to prosecuting enemies of the government and giving immunity to friends, which is despotic.”

It is very disappointing that while we stand here and raise these very important issues, my colleagues across the way chuckle, snicker and laugh.

We are devoted to getting to the bottom of this very serious issue. The issue is the Prime Minister's coordinated campaign to undermine the rule of law and force the former attorney general to drop the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, to the benefit, as far as we can tell, of his friends, and to the protection of which jobs? It is his own job.

We have also heard from members opposite that it is about jobs. They should know that they can create jobs and an environment that is favourable for the creation jobs and that they can protect jobs without breaking the law.

The account related to us by the former attorney general last night was nothing short of shocking. Her account detailed 10 meetings, 10 phone calls, involving 11 senior government officials. It does not get any more senior than the Prime Minister, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council, to name a few. According to the former attorney general, the objective of these meetings was very clear. It was to influence her, bully her and convince her to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Not surprisingly, the Liberal members of the justice committee tried to paint her testimony as without merit because she did not quit cabinet right away. We have heard from members opposite that the system is still intact. The only reason the judiciary was protected is because of the integrity of the now former attorney general.

She said, “I resigned from cabinet because I did not have confidence to sit around the cabinet table. That's why I resigned.” However, that was not in her role as attorney general, because when she refused to do the bidding of the Prime Minister, we know that she was fired. She said that directly to the Prime Minister. The new Attorney General was given a mandate letter, and it had just three letters in it: SNC.

Luckily for Canadians, the former attorney general's testimony came with a clear and precise timeline. The events surrounding the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin are very clear. I would like to go over some of the key dates, for the benefit of Canadians.

On September 4, the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that the trial would go ahead and there would be no deferred prosecution agreement. At that point, anyone would need lawful authority to stop that trial.

Yesterday, the former attorney general told us that lawful authority was not present. That began the months-long, unsolicited, coordinated and sustained attempts to stop the trial on corruption and bribery charges of that company.

A few days later, the chief of staff to the Minister of Finance, Ben Chin, contacted the chief of staff to the then attorney general. He said that if SNC-Lavalin did not get the deferred prosecution agreement, that it would move and that it was bad news because there was an election.

On September 11, that same chief of staff said to the former minister of justice's chief of staff that SNC-Lavalin was aware it was not receiving that DPA.

On September 16, Jessica Prince, the chief of staff to the former attorney general, received a call from Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques from the PMO. They told her that SNC-Lavalin made further submissions to the Crown and “there is some softening but not much.” They told her that SNC-Lavalin's board meeting was on September 20 and also mentioned the Quebec election. The former attorney general's chief of staff, Ms. Prince, told them that these concerns were bordering on interference in prosecutorial discretion.

As my colleague stated before, board meetings, share value, an election and a provincial election are not matters that can be considered in making a deferred prosecution agreement.

On September 17, the Prime Minister and the clerk met with the then attorney general to discuss the prosecution. The Prime Minister raised the issue immediately, and it was so inappropriate in the manner it was done that the former attorney general directly addressed the inappropriateness of the questions from the Prime Minister, but it did not end there.

On September 19, the former attorney general met with the Clerk of the Privy Council. He brought up job losses and that SNC-Lavalin's legal counsel was not a shrinking violet. Again, it is not a matter of public interest whether its legal counsel is a shrinking violet or not.

The attorney general then had to have a conversation with the finance minister, who wanted to browbeat her on the issue again. She told him that those engagements needed to stop, that those interventions needed to stop, and it went on and on.

It went on until December 19, and after a lunch between the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Wernick, and the Prime Minister, the former attorney general received a phone call. The clerk said, “I think the Prime Minister is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another.” He said, “It is not good for a Prime Minister and his Attorney General to be at loggerheads.” She did not waiver. She did not allow that interference to occur.

On January 7, she received a phone call from the Prime Minister that she was being fired.

On January 11, the deputy minister was informed that the new Attorney General would be dealing with one issue before any other, which was the three-letter mandate he was given: SNC.

Canadians are rightly concerned with what has gone on at the highest levels of the Prime Minister's Office. We, at the justice committee and in the House have asked for the Prime Minister to appear. Those requests have been met with hisses, boos and laughter from the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister must appear and when he does, he must appear under oath and give Canadians a full airing of what has occurred.

Our leader has sent a letter informing the RCMP of our concerns and we hope there is an investigation. To restore confidence in government and independence of the judiciary, the Prime Minister should do the right thing and resign. Let us get under way with seeing what happened here.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I continue to hear the words “obstruction of justice” and “illegality” in the comments coming from the opposition, and this is based on the testimony of the former attorney general. However, her testimony was very clear. I will cite it exactly. She said, “In my opinion, it's not illegal.” She does say, “It is very inappropriate.”

I come to the House every day at two o'clock for question period, not because I want to but because I am forced to by our whip. I find all of the behaviour here very inappropriate, although not illegal. We all find some things appropriate and other things inappropriate.

My question is simple. How can members opposite rely on the testimony of the former attorney general, who is a very smart lady and lawyer, to say that the Liberals have done something illegal, even though she has said that it is not illegal? I want to understand how the members opposite can have it both ways.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that the members opposite refuse to step away from the corruption that has occurred.

A former judge appeared at committee. The government House leader has stood in here day after day telling us to let the committee do its work. The committee did its work, and it heard from a judge who believed that the Prime Minister's attempt to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery merited at least an investigation by the RCMP's integrity unit.

Those statements, in conjunction with the statements of the former attorney general, require further review by the RCMP.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referenced, as many have tonight, the role of SNC-Lavalin's lawyer. He was referenced, through hearsay, in something said by the Clerk of the Privy Council to our former attorney general and minister of justice.

Frank Iacobucci is not a shrinking violet. He is playing an interesting role here. I wonder if my friend finds it curious in any way that SNC-Lavalin's lawyer was the choice of the Prime Minister to run the indigenous consultations in the repairing of the flawed consultations on the Kinder Morgan pipeline. He is still playing that role while he is SNC-Lavalin's lawyer.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, nothing surprises me at this point, but I continue to be more and more concerned with the tangled web that the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office have woven on this issue. The intervention and involvement by SNC-Lavalin's lawyers and their attempts to intervene with the director of public prosecutions through the former attorney general is very troubling. The issue raised by my colleague should be a subject of that RCMP investigation as well.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a very short question for the member.

We care about the rule of law. The member mentioned this, as have several other members. Through the testimony given by the former attorney general, the Prime Minister has said that there is one rule for the people of Canada and then another rule for the rulers of Canada, who happen to be in the Prime Minister's Office.

The rule of law is important because it furthers the cause of justice. I want the member to comment on this. Does it further the cause of justice for the former attorney general to be fired for making the right decision on September 17 and upholding the rule of law?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is perhaps the most troubling element of this scandal. For the former attorney general to stand up and insist on the protection and independence of the rule of law in Canada and to have the robust discussion with the Prime Minister's Office as it has been described is certainly one thing. However, once she was fired for doing the right thing, that is when the wheels really came off.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the wonderful member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

For the past two months, the Liberals have been completely embroiled in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The former attorney general shared her version of the facts, what she calls her truth. Now I would like to share the facts available to us with the House.

SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal-based consulting engineering firm that employs thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians. In 2015, the RCMP charged SNC-Lavalin with fraud and corruption in relation to its activities in Libya. A 2015 agreement with Ottawa enabled the engineering firm to keep bidding on federal contracts until the legal proceedings are complete.

If the company is found guilty, it will not be allowed to bid on government contracts anywhere in the world, including Quebec and Canada, for 10 years. In other words, it may as well close up shop. To prevent that from happening, to prevent SNC-Lavalin from closing its doors or moving its head office to some other country, the federal government created a tool known as remediation agreements. This tool was created for SNC-Lavalin in particular. The Minister of National Revenue made that clear in her February 19 interview on 98.5 with Bernard Drainville. He asked her this question:

Do you want a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?

The Minister of National Revenue answered:

What I can tell you here is that the cabinet decision made for SNC-Lavalin is not just for SNC-Lavalin, but for large corporations, whether they are in Quebec or Canada. This decision has already been made by other countries. It is important to protect employees and all the people working for SNC-Lavalin.

In her very candid answer, the minister clearly said that the decision to amend the Criminal Code was made for SNC-Lavalin. I will repeat what she said:

...the cabinet decision made for SNC-Lavalin...

That is what she said. Remediation agreements came into effect in September 2018. That is when the Prime Minister asked his then attorney general to use remediation agreements for SNC-Lavalin. It was not a surprise. The government had amended the law for this particular case.

Before I go on, I want to review what a remediation agreement is according to the Department of Justice. The parliamentary secretary said previously that it is important to know what it is, so I will begin by quoting the section on the purposes of a remediation agreement.

The main purposes of a remediation agreement would be:

To denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harms that such wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;

To hold the organization accountable for the wrongdoing;

To require the organization to put measures in place to correct the problem and prevent similar problems in the future;

To reduce harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence; and

To help repair harm done to victims or to the community, including through reparations and restitution.

In the next section, “Potential benefits of a remediation agreement”, it says:

A remediation agreement would hold organizations accountable for their wrongdoing and would provide an incentive to rectify their wrongdoing, while avoiding some of the negative consequences of a criminal conviction. It could help result in faster compensation to victims and protect jobs of innocent employees and investments of innocent shareholders. The possibility of being able to negotiate a remediation agreement may also encourage corporations to disclose wrongdoing and cooperate more readily with investigators.

One last excerpt:

While an agreement is in force, any criminal prosecution for conduct that is covered by the agreement would be put on hold [not withdrawn]. If the accused organization complies with terms and conditions set out in the agreement, the prosecutor would apply to a judge for an order of successful completion when the agreement expires. The charges would then be stayed and no criminal conviction would result. If the accused did not comply, the charges could be revived and the accused could be prosecuted and potentially convicted.

A remediation agreement does not mean that if a company breaks the law, it will not be prosecuted. A remediation agreement is a way to ensure that it will no longer break the law.

SNC-Lavalin is a company that committed crimes, and it must pay for these crimes. The ones who should not pay are the thousands of people who work for the company, its retirees, clients, contractors and subcontractors, and Quebeckers, who are shareholders through the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Just because SNC-Lavalin broke the law does not mean that the company should be destroyed.

Criminals are the ones who should be punished. This means that we should prosecute the executives who broke the law. This means that the company should pay for the crimes it committed. A remediation agreement allows for this to happen, which is why many countries have this tool.

I want to get back to September 2018. The Prime Minister asked the former attorney general to sign a remediation agreement, which she has the authority to do by law, but she refused to do so. Yesterday the former attorney general spoke for hours, but we still do not know why she refused.

The Prime Minister's Office told her that without a remediation agreement, SNC-Lavalin might move to London. The former attorney general responded that she would not change her mind. The Prime Minister's Office told her that this could jeopardize thousands of jobs in Quebec and Canada. She replied that she would not change her mind.

Every possible argument was made. She was asked whether she would like to get other expert opinions, but she said no. She was told it could cost them the upcoming election, but she said she did not care. She was told commitments had been made, but she refused to budge. She was told the head office and thousands of jobs were at stake, but it made no difference.

Why did she refuse to enter into a remediation agreement, a measure she had voted for, with the company for which remediation agreements had originally been introduced? We still do not know. It is a secret. After four hours of testimony, we still do not know.

As a democratic party that loves democracy, we believe in the separation of powers. We believe that the judicial and executive branches should be independent of each other. We believe that this principle must be protected at all times, without compromise.

Was there any undue pressure? I am still not sure. Before the Prime Minister is taken away in handcuffs, I would like to hear all sides of the story. I would like to hear more than just the former attorney general's version of the facts. I want to know the truth, plain and simple.

For the moment, the truth is that thousands of jobs are at stake. The truth is that SNC-Lavalin could leave Montreal for London. The truth is that the Conservatives and the NDP would rather focus on a Liberal political scandal than on the human tragedy that would befall thousands of families if SNC-Lavalin were to leave. The truth is that the only way to save those jobs is a remediation agreement. The truth is that, if we want SNC-Lavalin to pay for its crimes, we need that remediation agreement. The truth is that there is still no such agreement.

Yesterday, we witnessed a settling of scores between the former attorney general and the Prime Minister. She did not answer the most fundamental question: why did she decide not to sign a remediation agreement, which would prevent the loss of thousands of jobs and a head office in Quebec? She had the power to do so, yet she chose not to. Why?

Now, the new Attorney General needs to take responsibility. It will not be easy, but it is the right thing to do. If he does not sign an agreement, then thousands of SNC-Lavalin employees will be the victims of this settling of scores. For them, it was high time that we had an emergency debate on this issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague from Repentigny.

I think this is a really difficult decision. I think that everyone is concerned about the future of the jobs at that company. However, we still have a problem. If SNC-Lavalin is guilty, it is very serious.

There is work to be done. Other companies offer the same types of jobs building bridges, dams and roads.

Is it possible for the government to find another solution to protect the jobs, other than engaging in political behaviour that goes against our laws, our regulations and our Constitution?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question, although I was not really sure what she was getting at.

Should SNC-Lavalin be shut down and the contracts awarded to another company? Where would that company be from? Would it be from Toronto, the United States or somewhere else?

What we are saying is that this is collectively penalizing everyone, including the employees, suppliers, clients and the families of the workers. That is what needs to be stopped.

SNC-Lavalin has already cleaned house. Those individuals are no longer there and are being prosecuted.

Could we have a remediation agreement in order to ensure that the company can continue operating and families can keep paying their mortgage, paying their rent, paying their transportation costs and basically earning a living? That is what we want.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

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.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants me to define “appropriate”.

Here is what I have to say about that. What I find inappropriate in the House right now is that the opposition, Conservative and NDP alike, is dragging out this crisis for political gain because there is going to be an election in six months. That is what I find truly inappropriate.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the things my colleague said, such as the importance of getting to the bottom of this matter.

The government and SNC-Lavalin representatives discussed the possibility of a remediation agreement. The government included the remediation agreement clause in its omnibus bill. It seems odd to me that, when the opportunity arises to use that provision, suddenly the company is no longer eligible.

The question we need an answer to is this: Why did the former attorney general say no? If she said no because SNC-Lavalin is no longer eligible for the measure negotiated with the Liberals, that is a problem.

Does the member think there is a problem? When the Prime Minister wants to protect jobs—which I do not believe was his intention because he failed to do so on many occasions—that is a thin line. When the Prime Minister becomes the leader of the Liberal government and wants to salvage his election and his seat—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I apologize for interrupting the member, but time is up.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.

The NDP often speaks about the Prime Minister's rich friends. Are the 4,000 employees the Prime Minister's rich friends? I would like to ask him the question. Who does he think are the Prime Minister's rich friends? The Prime Minister intervened in an extremely inappropriate manner and he really mismanaged the file. What we want to do is stand up for the employees. They are currently the collateral damage of everything that is happening in the House to win votes.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for giving me the opportunity to speak on this matter that is vital to Quebec.

Over the past three weeks, Parliament has focused its full attention on what everyone is now calling the SNC-Lavalin affair. However, over the past three weeks very little has actually been said about SNC-Lavalin. It would seem that no one in Parliament really cares. We only hear about the Prime Minister, his entourage and the former attorney general of Canada. That is not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is in Montreal and concerns the workers, who are just ordinary citizens like everyone else.

Let us review the facts. Charges have been laid against SNC-Lavalin for crimes of corruption committed by former executives who have been fired. It must be pointed out that these are serious crimes and those responsible should go before a judge and pay the price for their actions. SNC-Lavalin has more than 3,600 other employees, for the most part at its Montreal head office. These 3,600 employees did not commit serious crimes and are worried about their jobs. If the company is found guilty of crimes committed by a few individuals, the head office will leave Quebec with its employees. That is the situation at SNC-Lavalin, which was founded in Quebec and is one of the 10 biggest engineering firms in the world.

Everybody knows that. The Prime Minister, the former attorney general and the opposition parties, they all know that. In light of the facts, SNC-Lavalin has to pay for the crimes of its former directors. Everybody agrees on that. No one should escape justice.

There are two ways to prosecute SNC-Lavalin. Both are legal and the government can use both. The first is to do nothing, allow the current process to run its course, lose the headquarters and put 3,600 people out of work with everything that entails for their families.

The second is to reach a remediation agreement between the government and the company. That involves having SNC-Lavalin plead guilty, proving that it is cleaning house and paying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. It means the company commits to being accountable and proving that it is above board at all times. If not, the charges will be re-filed in court. It means that 3,600 people in Quebec would keep their jobs and would not have to pay for the actions of their former bosses.

With a remediation agreement, it would be SNC-Lavalin that would be convicted, not its employees. The actual criminals would be individually taken to court. This brings us to the part of this crisis that the other parties care about, instead of caring about Quebec workers. Yesterday we heard brilliant testimony from the former attorney general. She provided a lot of detail about how the Prime Minister's Office pressured her and her staff. The Prime Minister pressured her to opt for signing a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin instead of standing by while the company moved to the U.K.

The Prime Minister himself asked several times for her to find a way around a trial, to prevent thousands of jobs from being lost in Montreal. I believe the former attorney general's testimony. I believe that she gave us her version of the facts and I thank her for that.

The Prime Minister's Office was clearly doing some arm-twisting to get the former attorney general to do what it wanted. The Prime Minister acted foolishly, which is how we ended up with a full-blown crisis. The Prime Minister was obviously unable to explain the situation to her and convince her that signing an agreement was the best solution for everyone. The Prime Minister was clearly incompetent and his entourage acted like a bunch of entitled amateurs.

However, just because a handful of people, in this case, the Prime Minister and his entourage, act like amateurs, 3,600 others should not have to lose their jobs. Similarly, the crimes committed by a handful of individuals should not result in 3,600 people losing their jobs. The political bubble in Ottawa does not seem to get this.

That political bubble surrounds every non-Bloc MP who has forgotten that partisan jousting and news cameras are one thing and real people are another. Real people have jobs, mortgages to pay, cars, transit passes and families to support. Those are the people we are working for. Those are the people who vote for us to stand up for them. No honest person deserves to lose their job because their boss, the person in charge, the top dog, committed a crime.

The other parties here in Ottawa have chosen to ignore that reality. They know this crisis has already cost the company $1.6 billion in the stock market. They know the company was downgraded. They know that if this company is going to survive, it will have to sell its subsidiaries at a discount and cut jobs. They know that if this goes on for much longer, there will be yet another foreign takeover of a Quebec-based company. They know all this, yet they choose the political bubble in Ottawa.

The reality here in the bubble is that we are in an election year, and slamming the Prime Minister looks good in the polls. The reality here is that none of the other parties are working to resolve this crisis to protect jobs. They want to drag out the crisis to make political gains at the expense of workers in Quebec. They are all playing a dangerous and cynical game, for a goal that has nothing to do with the public interest.

The Conservative Party, which claims to be the party for the economy, is willing to sacrifice a major head office to make the Prime Minister look bad. The NDP, which claims to be the party for the workers, is willing to sacrifice 3,600 jobs to win byelections in British Columbia. The Liberal government, which currently has all the powers to act to resolve the crisis, is hiding and hoping the storm will pass. It is afraid of paying a political price in the rest of Canada, because, yes, saving jobs in Quebec or a Quebec company will cost them in the rest of Canada.

Would the federalist parties bash a company based in Toronto, Calgary, or Vancouver like this? The truth is that the other parties in the rest of Canada are free to hammer on SNC-Lavalin. Let us not forget that the rest of Canada sees Quebec entrepreneurship as the Bonhomme Carnaval with a briefcase stuffed with cash, the image used by Maclean's. We know that in the rest of Canada, the only thing more popular than bashing the Prime Minister is bashing Quebec, even if that means misrepresenting thousands of honest workers as white-collar criminals.

The Bloc Québécois unequivocally sides with the workers, and we are very proud of that. Our priority is to keep the jobs in Quebec and the headquarters in Montreal. The government has all the power it needs to intervene to come up with a remediation agreement with the company without infringing on the rule of law in any way. The Attorney General can proceed through directives or simply take over the SNC-Lavalin case. The law is crystal clear on that, and we must make use of it before the inevitable job losses begin.

If the opposition parties want to behave so irresponsibly, that is on them. They will have to answer for that in the election. However, the Attorney General is responsible for what happens to the SNC-Lavalin employees. He has to put partisanship aside and behave like a statesman by fulfilling the primary duty of an elected representative in Parliament, which is to protect his constituents. That is our role. That is why we are here.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of listening to the two speeches from my Bloc Québécois colleagues. We all share the same love and affection for our province. We can also have some very intense discussions sometimes. However, we do not have to agree on how to fix issues in our province. The same is true in any group of individuals.

I have a question for my colleague. Does he think that if the SNC-Lavalin headquarters had been anywhere other than Montreal, for example, in Toronto, Vancouver or Calgary, our two colleagues in the opposition would have reacted the same way?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just covered that. If it was a company from Toronto, Vancouver or Calgary, the reactions would not be the same. There might be more of a hurry to fix the problem and save jobs.

However, we must not forget that there are even more jobs in the rest of Canada. This is not the only factor to consider, but I think we must stand with workers and focus this debate on signing a remediation agreement. It would be a huge blow to lose all of these jobs. We cannot forget that remediation agreements are designed for Canadian and Quebec companies.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I liked the beginning of my colleague's speech the best. He said that we are at a crossroads. I thought that was a very simple image that is easy to understand. We can either turn right toward a criminal trial or turn left toward a remediation agreement.

Here is the fundamental question: why did the former attorney general decide to turn right? She likely had legal opinions telling her that it was impossible to turn left. Perhaps SNC-Lavalin did not meet the criteria that the Liberals themselves included in the omnibus bill.

Does my colleague agree that the solution is to conduct a public inquiry as quickly as possible to shed some light on the situation, get some answers to that question and find out whether it was possible to turn left?