When he gets accused of groping a young reporter many years ago, he writes it off as a misunderstanding.

Meanwhile, when members of his own caucus find themselves in comparable situations, their explanations seem to be ignored and they face harsh punishment.

“A double standard” screams the chattering classes, unable to contain their outrage.

Before getting out the smelling salts, let me ask a simple question: Why is everyone so shocked? Hasn't this been the way Canadian politics has worked for as long as most of us can remember? Hasn't our current political system become so leader-centric that the prime minister can get away with things that would be unthinkable for a cabinet minister or ordinary backbench MP?

Why are we afraid to acknowledge that reality? We live in a world where the party brand and party leader have become synonymous. The party leaders are the focus of news coverage, editorials and endless commentaries.  They are the standard by which most voters judge political parties. And in fairness, they are also the people who often shoulder the blame for the actions and policies of others in their party, even if they were not directly responsible.

The result is simple.  If your party wants to be successful you need to protect your leader at all costs.  If your leader fails, your party fails. Missteps, minor scandals and just plain dumb mistakes by party leaders need to be “managed.”  Excuses must be found. Subordinates must be blamed. Diversions need to be created. And everyone on the inside must accept that fact because, as the old saying goes, if you don't hang together, you will hang separately.

Sure there are exceptions, just ask Patrick Brown.  But for every example like his, there are dozens more where party leaders, particularly those in power, have survived situations that would have surely resulted in the dismissal of lesser party members.  Do you really think that Stephen Harper would have kept a minister around whose chief of staff paid $90,000 to Mike Duffy?

This reality is not necessarily all bad. Governing in today's complex world demands strong central leadership and co-ordination. Somebody needs to be in charge and see the big picture. The relentlessness of our never-ending media cycle requires central direction to ensure that everyone is on the same page.  It therefore seems natural that any party would go to considerable lengths to protect their most important player, even if it means applying a different standard.

It also has its dangers: Canada's party leaders face little internal accountability. Leaders are elected by party members — not caucus members who have no formal mechanism to hold them to account.  The leader of the Liberal Party, for example, only faces a leadership review vote by party members if he or she loses an election.

All these factors can add up to an unhealthy concentration of power. When leaders are not formally answerable to those around them, it is easy to become out of touch; to disregard thoughtful criticism; and to fall in the habit of quashing views that don't align with their own.  It also creates a breeding ground for powerful unelected advisors.

In short, it encourages the tendency for leaders to apply different rules to themselves.

Can a better balance be created?  Conservative MP Michael Chong certainly thinks so.  Several years ago he successfully shepherded a private member's bill through Parliament aimed at holding party leaders more accountable.

The bill was not mandatory but it did require each party to consider its provisions during their first official caucus meeting following any election, starting with the most recent in 2015.

Known as the Reform Act, it gives each caucus the formal power to review their party leader and, if necessary, remove them from the role. To protect those MPs who are critical of the leader or their policies, the bill also removes the party leader's power to eject someone from caucus. If the bill's provisions are adopted, an MP's removal would be a collective decision.

In the post-election excitement, probably few Canadians noticed that the federal Liberals refused to adopt the bill's measures.  They instead claimed that the measures would be discussed at an upcoming national party convention — something that never happened.

Discussions over procedural mechanisms to hold party leaders more accountable may be about as interesting as watching paint dry.  But connect the dots. Part of the reason leaders face different rules is tied to the structure of our political system. I am uncertain whether adopting Michael Chong's Reform Act would result in less of a double standard. A debate over its pros and cons, however, might be more productive than writing endless “gotcha” columns about what anyone with any political experience already knows: in politics, those at the top are treated differently.

John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario Liberal cabinet minister currently serving as the Director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Martin Luther University College, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program.  John can be reached at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter @John_Milloy.