JUSTICE FOR ALL

EDMONTON JOURNAL
And justice for all - I don't think so
Sunday 29 August 2004

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares at section 15 that "every individual is equal before and under the law" -- a fine and noble sentiment, and a fundamental principle in any nation governed by the rule of law.

It means two things, though, or should.

Not only, as the Charter adds, does it mandate that each Canadian "has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." It must also mean no one is above the law. The rules that govern us apply equally to all, regardless of power and privilege.

When there become two sets of laws -- one for the governed and another for the governors -- not only is the justice system brought into disrepute, the rule of law itself is jeopardized.

When people lose confidence that they will be treated as fairly as anyone else, they begin to wonder why they should obey the law at all.

There will always be some discrepancies in the application of justice --  the rich will always be able to afford more and better lawyers to plead their cases, for instance. The real danger comes, instead, when judges and attorneys-general begin treating the powerful more leniently than they would treat the rest of us under the same circumstances.

If you doubt that we are in danger of such a duality corrupting Canadian democracy, ask yourself whether, if you got caught pocketing a $64,000 ring, the judge would give you a conditional discharge and limit your punishment to some psychological counselling, one year's probation and 100 hours of community service?

Would the judge dismiss the item you had shoplifted as a mere "bauble, a trinket"? Would he buy your story that you had suddenly become light-fingered as the result of a "devastating stress" you were still feeling from a seven-year-old hiking accident -- even though you had been in the public eye each of those seven years with no visible sign of that alleged stress? Would he call your explanation a "gut-wrenching tale"? Would he reassure you "I'm satisfied that what (you have) gone through, the public would say is enough"? Then would he let you leave the courtroom with a sentence more in keeping with a first-offending teen vandal?

Or answer this: If you had racked up $2 million in expenses at work over the past eight years, without so much as a cash register tape for corroboration, do you think the Canada Revenue Agency would be letting your case slide without an investigation? Without insisting that at least some of those were taxable benefits and that you owed several thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest?

Would the RCMP be letting you slide?

No? You think not? You think that you -- not being Svend Robinson or Andre Ouellet -- might be subject to, shall we say, a bit more rigorous treatment?

 I suspect you're right.

If you or I had stolen a $64,000 ring we'd be doing more than 100 hours community service, first offence or not, stress or not.

And if one of us had tried to pad our incomes by a quarter of a million a year, the taxman, rightly, would be taking a somewhat less-than-sanguine view of our, um, creativity.

Yet Robinson, of course, was gushed and fawned over in a Vancouver courtroom earlier this month for an action that would have earned either you or me a harsh rebuke and lifetime criminal record.

Meanwhile, Ouellet was permitted to slip quietly into retirement, with a considerable pension and considerable confidence that the federal Liberal government will pursue neither charges against him nor back taxes. It's hard to know which case is more galling.

Robinson's took place in court, where justice is supposed to be impartial.

The only thing truly "gut-wrenching" was witnessing the judge coo about this "man who has achieved much, more than most."

Ouellet was let off the hook by politicians, of whom no impartiality should be expected. But, if it's possible, he showed even less remorse than Robinson. Repeatedly, in a 17-page letter to Revenue Minister John McCallum, Ouellet claimed he was a victim of persecution. "A few frustrated former and current CPC (Canada Post Corporation) employees were fully listened to," he moaned. But "any movement of support (for me) has been discouraged."

And he insisted his misconduct while the head of Canada Post -- not just the outrageous expenses, but also the hiring of friends and political contacts, and the directing of supply contracts to Liberal-friendly firms --  "should be placed in the total context of performance during my tenure in order to provide a balanced scorecard measurement." As if unethical behaviour can be justified by "record profits" and "major accomplishments."

CEOs whose decisions lead to operating losses in one division can plead that these mistakes be offset by successes elsewhere in the company. But innovative product launches are not like papal indulgences that permit one to use one's triumphs to induce one's way out of unethical misdeeds.

Ouellet also insisted his "83 special hires over eight years," be seen in the context of "16,000 external hires every year for a corporation of 70,000 employees." But the honest hires do nothing to mitigate his questionable ones.

For the good of Canadian justice, Robinson and Ouellet deserve harsher treatment

_____________________
Lorne Gunter
Columnist and Edit Bd Member,
National Post
Columnist, Edmonton Journal