Mr. Speaker, I want to start by paying my respect to the member for Vancouver Granville. She is a colleague, a friend and someone whose principles I admire and whose determination to do the right thing we all can respect. We saw that on display yesterday. We have certainly seen it inside caucus for the time we have been in government and worked together.
It is important that in this process she be respected. She has fulfilled her duties and done them well. While the member for Vancouver Granville may have some new converts on the other side, those of us who have worked with her have known she has these principles and she has acted on principle throughout this entire situation.
I also want to note that we are discussing a matter which is in front of the courts still. SNC-Lavalin has been brought to court, as the public record shows, on some very serious charges. It is proper that those charges be adjudicated through the process in which it currently finds itself. It is important to note that those criminal proceedings are still happening. We often hear from the other side that somehow something has been suspended or something untoward has happened, but the reality is that the company is being held to account for practices for which it will have to answer.
When it comes to deferred prosecution agreements, the law that governs the use of these agreements is very clear. They are there to ensure that for people unassociated with the charges, damage is not done to them accidentally through a verdict and sentencing and that people are protected. It is important to protect people in the justice system, especially innocent people. The lives of thousands of people could be impacted by whatever decision is rendered in that court.
As part of the legal framework that governs the way in which courts have to respond to these charges, there is provision for the minister to intervene, once the public prosecution office has rendered a path forward. That is permissible under our laws, and we have had many members here stand today and talk about when and how that aspect of the law should be applied.
It is there because there other considerations. Responsible governments have to balance impacts at times. It is not that the Constitution and jobs are at conflict. It is that both have to be held with equal weight and in their proper place as the government moves forward.
Therefore, when we look at these cases, the other thing we know is that as the evidence is put on the record, as discovery is pursued, as lawyers talk, it is a fluid process. As we heard yesterday in the testimony from the former attorney general, even the lead prosecutor and the chief prosecutor all the way through this process were talking about what was the right course of action, based on evidence and offers from the other side. It is not a simple sequential thing where, once the chief prosecutor makes a decision, everything just falls into order. There are negotiations. There are conversations. There are moments in court. These things happen.
At the same time, the impact of a decision can also be measured differently as circumstances change around the case, as shareholder meetings are held, as economic conditions and other court cases are rendered, as the health and strength of economies ebb and flow, as contracts are let and, in this case, as new infrastructure programs move forward. Therefore, it is not unusual for lawyers to talk back and forth. Nor is it unusual for government officials to talk back and forth about what the implications and the circumstances are and what the possible outcomes might be and the impact that they might have on Canadians. We have a responsibility to the Constitution and we have a responsibility to the law, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that the lives of Canadians are kept safe, especially the lives of innocent Canadian hat could be impacted by a court decision like this.
Therefore, there is no final decision in this process. There is a series of evaluations that have to happen and those evaluations are right and proper, provided they are done within the framework of the law that governs deferred prosecution agreements.
It is not wrong for a government to be concerned about people's lives, about pensioners and the impact a decision might have on the viability of their pensions, and about municipalities that have contracted with the company involved and whether the projects they are involved in may stall, such as a water plant or, as we have in the case of Ottawa, an LRT that is being built. The people on those job sites also have a right to make sure that their innocence is protected through the decisions and impacts this government has carriage of, and the government does have carriage of it.
When we look at that, and we heard from some members from Quebec who were very eloquent about this, we have a responsibility to measure outcomes, to predict possibilities, to explore various outcomes and to make sure that the proceedings are kept within the boundaries of the law but at the same time are measured and thoughtful. That requires, from time to time, checking in with the Minister of Justice. It also requires the Minister of Justice checking in from time to time with cabinet colleagues, caucus colleagues and I would say members of Parliament. I do not think that is unexpected, unwarranted or wrong.
The issue then becomes how we balance this within the law. I think some of the members opposite have contributed to the debate and have deepened our understanding. I look to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who has had very reasonable and well-articulated arguments presented on the floor. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has done the same, as has our esteemed colleague from Victoria. We are being tested to make sure that we are doing the right thing in the right way, in the same way that the former justice minister assured us that she was trying to do the right thing in the right way.
Through all of this, the issue that now has been presented to us by the opposition is whether the Prime Minister should resign. Of course, he should not, because he too is doing his job. He is making sure that every outcome, every possibility and every impact is understood and that all decisions are being made in a fluid situation, in a very dynamic situation. That is what I expect of a prime minister in a country like Canada. I also expect those decisions to be tested by the opposition. They have been tonight and probably will be for days to come.
However, in the end, the issue that I think defines this is the fact that the court case continues. Even if a deferred prosecution agreement is offered or materializes, if that is the decision of an independent prosecution office not directed by our government, because that is still an option for an independent prosecution office to make if that is the best way forward in its independent judgment, it is not a get-out-of-jail card for SNC-Lavalin. For an agreement to be entered into, there is still an acknowledgement of guilt. Otherwise, it cannot move forward. There are still punishments afforded that acknowledgement that must be lived up to. Otherwise, the deferred prosecution is no longer deferred and it is re-engaged. In other words, the criminal charge hangs over the accused company until such time as proper penalties have been paid, penalties that do not impact innocent Canadians, do not rob them of their jobs, take away pensions, collapse critical infrastructure, hurt communities or disrupt good, strong investments that have been made right across this country.
The issue that stands at the heart of this conversation is how we respect the law, how we balance the interests of innocent Canadians and protect them and how we are held to account by Parliament while we do that. I am confident that the government has done the right thing, that the former attorney general has done the right thing and that the Prime Minister has done the right thing. I agree that the opposition is doing its job holding us to account and making us explain the circumstances we find ourselves in.
The final point I will make is this. The former attorney general has done what she was asked to do, which was to make the decision she had to make and come to committee to be held accountable for it and explain it. This Parliament and this government are now in a position to figure out what the next steps are. I am prepared to be held to account as a member of this government, but I am also prepared to stand in support of my Prime Minister.
