Harper and the Risk of Criticism

The prime minister may find it politically popular to take shots at corporations like BP, but intemperate remarks can be costly down the road.

Does Stephen Harper have insider information on the Gulf of Mexico oil catastrophe that he is keeping to himself? He must. How else to explain his May 2 statement in the House of Commons about the companies responsible for the rig that exploded at the end of April, threatening to cover a large segment of the Gulf Coast in oil? The prime minister boldly observed, “The behaviour of the companies in question is completely unacceptable and would be completely unacceptable in this country."

Initial reports indicate that it will take weeks, if not months, to determine just what happened. Nevertheless, Harper has apparently already come to his own conclusions about the matter. Only the throng of personal injury lawyers – who have already started filing lawsuits against any and all deep pockets available – have matched the alacrity displayed by our prime minister in making up his mind.

This is no small matter. While demagoguery comes naturally to most, if not all politicians, it is no friend of the rule of law. It is at times like these that our political leaders should be judiciously reminding us about principles such as the presumption of innocence. Instead, Harper appears to be angling for a leading position in the regulatory lynch mob. Considering our country’s vast shoreline does not actually include any part of the Gulf of Mexico, it is a curious thing to see our prime minister so willing to dispense with notions of due process just because he believes he is playing to a sympathetic national audience.

Embracing the predictable, populist lament that “greedy multinational corporations” are to blame for the worst of our societal woes should not come so easy to any mainstream politician, much less a Conservative one. The prime minister had better be careful here, because he is playing with fire. Intemperate remarks can impact the risk assessment that any large employer makes before investing in a country.

Keeping in mind that this is the same government that destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars in shareholder value with its surprise reversal on the tax treatment of income trusts, one would think that Harper would not go out of his way to pronounce judgment on a case such as this one without first receiving a full appraisal of the facts. It all goes to credibility. Any country where the political leaders are seen as all too willing to rush to regulatory judgment so long as it is politically convenient for them to do so is one to think twice about before making a substantial investment.

The prime minister should try to find another way to burnish his green credentials. This one may not work out well for Canadians in the long run.