Competition Bureau (Not) Tough on Crime: Government Voids Rule of Law
It’s a comparatively minor case, but for those who are hoping Canada’s various white-collar crime units will protect us from lawbreakers, this doesn’t exactly bode well:
Corporate Research Group… pleaded guilty today in an Ottawa court to a criminal charge of bid-rigging. The company is also under a court order that prohibits it from engaging in any conduct contrary to the bid-rigging provisions in the Competition Act.
Here’s the backstory: CRG and one of its “competitors” colluded to rig bidding for a real estate contract with Public Works Canada. Bureaucrats noticed that their paperwork was sloppy, and an investigation was launched, leading to CRG pleading guilty in court. It turns out, according to CBC, that they actually won the contract in question, and consequently received a $312,000 payment from the government.
In exchange for which, they are now paying a $125,000 fine, plus — quelle horreur! — they’re going to be subject to a 5-year court order that orders them not to break the law again. Um, what? I realize I’m an ignoramus when it comes to legal matters, but I kind of thought the law was a standing order in and of itself. Why should a company be “punished” with a court order saying it is not allowed to break the law? It’s not allowed to break the law anyways.
New prisons for the blue-collar criminals, new tickets out of jail for the white-collar criminals. The Harper government may be tough on crime, but at least they respect the class system, right?
Tweet
Beijing York
The courts were pretty lax when it came to the In and Out electoral fraud of 2008. You would think they would at least ban CRG from ever bidding on a federal government contract again.
Sixth Estate
Yes and no. As election offences go, the fact that the Conservative case even went to court is practically unprecedented. (But yes, definitely soft — I’m just comparing it to other elections offences, including by multiple members of the current Cabinet.)
As a general rule, it seems to me, all court cases involving the government in some way are unaccountably lax.
Sam Gunsch
re: “Why should a company be “punished” with a court order saying it is not allowed to break the law? It’s not allowed to break the law anyways.”
Does anyone else notice this has echoes of possibly some sort of corollary to a Catch 22 ?
An inverse or reverse or converse C-22?
If so, could there be a new appropriate ‘tag’ created or label for posts like this by SEstate ?
saskboy
Are you on holiday or something? One would almost think it were Summer…
Sixth Estate
Something like that. That, and getting married in a week’s time. So I’ve been a bit busy lately.
Don’t worry. I’ll be back soon!
chris
Whuh?
Congratulations, SE!
saskboy
Wow, that’s big news. No wonder it’s been quiet around here.
Holly Stick
Congratulations.
By the way David Akin is blogging about you:
http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politicsconservatives/the-conservative-patronage-trough/
The Sixth Estate » Minimum Sentences for Us, Minimal Sentences for Them
[...] other white-collar ne’er-do-wells. Recently in Canada, for instance, the Competition Bureau announced that a company had been found guilty of rigging government bids. It paid a fine which looks to my uneducated eye [...]