The
appointment of Stan Marshall as CEO has not diminished the culture of secrecy at
Nalcor. It was born under former CEO Ed Martin and current V-P Gilbert Bennett
and is entrenched in a number of insidious ways, each of which ought to be
exposed. The more prescient examples are ones that receive the greatest
attention – this post describes one more. Still, no one should think they are
outcrops of randomness even if discussion of the larger problem awaits.
What should
be clear to all, however, is this: if Stan Marshall has brought change to
Nalcor’s governance practices they elude the most ardent observers.
Likely,
Marshall is more preoccupied with deciding on which knee the CEO of Hydro
Quebec will sit - as he come to grips with the reality that a “bad” and a
“necessary” deal are one and the same.
That, too,
is an important subject especially given the negotiations underway with la belle province. Marshall likely intends to “excise” the Muskrat Falls project –
remove - cut it out -from the “Liberal” narrative; Ball not having had the good
sense – let alone the instinct – to keep it grafted onto the Tories’ hide.
 |
| CEO Stan Marshall |
Worrisome,
to be sure, is the price Hydro Quebec will extract for this convenience. But the endemic
deception is a guarantee that when the “deal” is done the “perpetrators” – that's the right word - of the Muskrat Falls project will be excused from responsibility and exposure.
Likely –
unless the public demands a full judicial inquiry into why the project was
contrived using false assumptions and false DG-2 estimates - issues which preceded bungling by inexperienced project management – it will be buried in a labyrinthine legal construct. The deal is
likely to include, apart from Muskrat and Gull Island, some of this province’s
rights to the Upper Churchill.
The agreement will be written by Hydro Quebec
lawyers, too – the thunderous jeering directed at Nalcor’s overpriced beagles by the Justices of the Quebec Superior Court - having barely died down.
There is
much to be buried – and it will be buried – because so many people are
complicit.
The latest emblem of a failed project – one that V-P Gil Bennett had hoped to give
subterranean treatment - is the leaky cofferdam.
Long dubbed
“the cable guy” few could comprehend, at the start, his suitability to manage a
megaproject. But as if to confirm that he prefers making omelets without
breaking eggs Stan Marshall kept him around.
 |
| Nalcor V-P Gilbert Bennett |
The temporary cofferdam is a very basic
civil works job. When you can’t get even that right, when your quality control
regime will allow kilometers of faulty transmission line to be shipped and strung,
when most everyone, except Gil Bennett, acknowledges the presence of quick clay
at the North Spur – there is little to claim, except cover-up.
I can still
hear Ed Martin’s exhortations of the “hundred year project” as a giddy media drank
in the spin master’s braggadocio. Now, it is difficult to imagine Muskrat will
ever get a chance to age given the multiplicity of problems – including frazil
ice - that cause further delays.
None of this
has subdued the Nalcor PR machine, however. Again, they are in high gear, getting
ready to exhort new beginnings, and to give caution to bloggers using
expressions uncomplimentary - like “avaricious” – as Hydro Quebec offers to
hide bad judgement, waste, extravagance, and incompetence in return for a “deal” expected to masquerade as “burying the hatchet”.
Of course, the
perfect way to bury a ‘crime’ is to change the narrative of Muskrat Falls.
Revise history. Excise and expunge the “boondoggle”. Bury it deep enough to make
it appear it had never existed. All the better if the cost of the waste and
incompetence are deferred to the next couple of generations.
Recently, David
Vardy learned the extent to which Nalcor will go to keep their “boutiller” (screw-up) buried. The former public servant whose tenure included Clerk of the
Executive Council, President of the Marine Institute, Chair of the Public
Utilities Board, and critic of the Muskrat Falls project - set out to have the November 2, 2016 Report of the Independent Engineer laid bare.
Vardy’s
story is disconcerting, as are so many others. Fortunately, it is supported
by written correspondence – not the easily denied verbal kind – thanks to the
Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Act.
This is how
the exhumation went down.
David Vardy
wrote Nalcor on October 5, 2016 stating:
On November
2, 2016 Nalcor responded to Vardy:
Nalcor dithered
for almost a month before informing Vardy it did not wish to release the
Report.
Then what?
1. A Nalcor staffer called Vardy to
inquire if he would agree
to withdraw his ATIPPA request…now that his Application was rejected. Vardy
refused. Certain that Nalcor lacked the authority to withhold the Report, the
former Cabinet Clerk planned to appeal the decision to the Information and
Privacy Commissioner - which he did.
2. Nalcor invoked section 29(1)(b) of
the Act as the basis for withholding the document – the particular section is
reproduced as follows:
Nalcor had claimed that the Report
constituted a “formal research report” or an “audit report” when, in fact, it
was neither. In his letter to the Information and Privacy Commissioner Vardy suggested it was merely a report – no more no less - to which the
lenders and the federal government, as “guarantor” of the Federal Loan
Guarantee, were entitled under part 4.9 of the “Term Sheet”. That document describes
the obligations of the province to those parties. The following snippet
confirms Vardy’s contention:
Note the
last sentence of this part 4.9” “The Borrowers (Nalcor) ….shall have no
contractual or other relationship with the IE other than ….to pay the fees of
the IE”.
Yet, Nalcor
was claiming not just that the IE Report constituted a “research” or “audit”
report for them, but implicitly that they were “the head of the public body”
claiming ownership of the Report. Only proof of such a status would have entitled
them to declare the Report “incomplete” which, in turn, would have entitled them
to make an “order for completion”. On any other basis Nalcor could not refuse Vardy’s
request.
The absurdity
– and the dishonesty – is that the Federal Government, not Nalcor, appointed
the IE (MWH Global Inc). The terms of
the loan guarantee explicitly demand that Nalcor conduct an arms-length
relationship with the IE – except to pay the company’s fees.
It is
noteworthy that during the time Vardy was corresponding with Nalcor and the
Information and Privacy Commissioner, he was also corresponding with the
Minister of Natural Resources on a tangential matter, namely the acquisition of MWH Global
by Stantec, a major contractor with Nalcor. Part of Sioban Coady’s reply to
Vardy is reproduced below. Says the Minister:
In her
response to Vardy, Minister Coady also indicated: “Nalcor Energy and the
Government of Canada are making arrangements to address the issue to ensure the
continued independence of the IE.”
Vardy later
noted for this post that he found Nalcor’s involvement in resolving this
conflict was in itself indicative of the unusual control which Nalcor appears
to have over the IE, including a role in finding a successor to MWH Global.
 |
| David Vardy |
In any
event, had Vardy not persisted and informed Nalcor of his intention to appeal
their decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the IE’s Report could
have been delayed until December 23, 2016. Vardy would have had to re-apply under the rules
of ATIPPA – and wait a second time.
What
happened next?
Vardy
explained that on December 3rd, 2016 he was “rummaging” through
documents posted on Nalcor’s web site and “came across” the November Report of
the Independent Engineer – the one Nalcor would not give him – the very one
under appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Nalcor had
refused Vardy even the courtesy of an email advising him that they had relented
and released the document. A less petulant V-P Gil Bennett might also have sent
him a copy of the Report as an attachment.
The IE’s
Report wasn’t all that Vardy found. Posted, too, and dated December 2, 2016 (likely
the very same day the Report was released) was a letter addressed to the (fake)
oversight committee. It seems, having failed to get the IE to change its Report
to reflect Nalcor’s view, the V-P took the peculiar step of writing to
that committee instead.
Bennett
stated he was providing “some additional context…in
relation to some comments made by the IE in the November 2, 2016 report”. Since the oversight group relies totally on
Nalcor and conducts no investigations of its own – the letter is the equivalent
of Gilbert Bennett talking to his mirror.
Bennett’s
letter notes the Tube # 2 falsework failure (the cribbing which collapsed
immersing a group of workers in concrete) on which the IE had commented
critically. He states that the input of the IE was that of an “observer”.
It is ironic
that when it is convenient Nalcor describes the role of the IE as that of an
auditor but at other times they are simply “observers”. Granted there were
insurance issues at stake in the comments on the falsework failure. But it
makes using grounds - clearly in violation of access to information legislation
- for withholding the report from disclosure appear very contrived.
Bennett’s defensiveness
is surely a warning Quebec Hydro is sniffing out his grand bousiller (big
screw-up).
Stan
Marshall and Dwight Ball just want Muskrat off their plate. They want it over - whatever the
cost.
The secrets kept hidden won’t bother them when Gilbert Bennett’s mirror answers him - en francais.
