From the comments: Should SNC-Lavalin be spared a trial on corruption charges? Readers debate the merits of remediation

We cannot accept Montreal level corruption on a national scale. Ten year bans are put in place as we cannot trust the safety and quality of projects built by an organization rife with corruption. We don’t need bridges collapsing. No net jobs will be lost. Contracts will go to other Canadian companies.

Remediation was meant for companies who find misdeeds within their ranks and voluntarily come forward to inform authorities about that. SNC-Lavalin did not come forward but they were dragged into the light. When the charges were laid the company said they were "without merit" and then lobbied for a remediation law to be passed. If the charges were without merit, no worries. They lobbied politically instead of facing the court. I think their high handed lobbying showed they were above the law and could use connections to change the law to their benefit. The law in question was stuffed into a huge omnibus budget bill and never had proper consideration, just as SNC-Lavalin wanted. Only a stiff necked Director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and an ethical Attorney-General of Canada, two upstanding women to whom we ought all to be grateful, thwarted SNC-Lavalin's plan, not to have to face charges. The writer omits the key feature of companies coming forward to admit fault. There's nothing wrong wanting to save the jobs at SNC-Lavalin. What's wrong was the lack of transparency in the manner the government proposed to do it. They should have been aware that Canadians would see through a law passed to specifically benefit SNC-Lavalin. As reported in this paper, the conditions normally required for a remedial agreement did not exist for SNC-Lavalin, since SNC-Lavalin did not come forward voluntarily with their misdeeds. The Prime Minister’s Office was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and Wilson-Raybould knew it. I'm surprised Lametti is still considering it. If the government wanted to help SNC-Lavalin they should have been honest about it from the start instead of spinning a yarn.

SNC-Lavalin does not have to do the work. There are plenty of other engineering firms in Canada that can do the job. It is time for companies to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Why should employees suffer for the crimes condoned by the executive and/or principals? Obviously the company must accept any civil liability but individuals should be prosecuted for criminal acts.

SNC-Lavalin’s record is not good. Why continuously reward them for sleazy behaviour? This needs to be an example case.

Why can't SNC-Lavalin behave ethically? The company repeatedly misbehaves and puts its political benefactors in impossible positions. Are multi-million dollar bribes intrinsic to doing business, Period Full Stop? It behooves government to be absolutely ruthless in ferreting out such behaviour and dropping the A-bomb if necessary or perpetually risk destabilizing our national politics for the sake of enabling corporate criminals. I'm tired of seeing opposition parties seize upon these so-called scandals for partisan gain when they'll likely face the identical circumstances when they're in office. If politicians don't want to find themselves in the crosshairs over corporate corruption then they must crush it at every opportunity.

The company SNC-Lavalin should be allowed to negotiate a settlement in the alleged bribery scandal. However, there is no way that the people involved in this scandal should get off. They need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Trudeau's commentary on this shifts faster than the sand in the Sahara. For a young person he has a very bad memory. Damage control moving ahead at full speed. The ethics investigation should be very interesting.

According to the philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard, there is only distraction and despair. Observing politics these days is both at once. In most cases, the opinions, comments and outrage far outweigh the facts. What I learned a long time ago is that the truth will not necessarily set you free.

I am sad for Canada today. Canadians (especially liberals) did not believe Paul Martin, Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff were up for the job (to say nothing of Thomas Mulcair), and yet Trudeau was acceptable? Wilson-Raybould would have been a better choice for leader, but the voters would have had none of that either. People are fools and Canada the loser for that.

Absolutely agree on Martin and Dion. Dion especially was very good at policy and very dedicated to Canada, but suffered terribly on the campaign trail, not an instinctive politician. Unfortunately the best administrators and the best politicians are seldom found in one individual. Instead we got Trudeau.

Agreed about both Martin and Dion. They seemed like men of intelligence and integrity. I also miss Mulcair, he was much better than Singh. Sadly, the world seems to have become all about image and sound bites over substance.