Will the Coalition make a difference?
One of those invited to join the Muskrat Falls Concerned
Citizens’ Coalition (MFCCC) asked the following questions:
Thank you for the invitation to join your Coalition. I have
two questions, answers to which will have an impact on my decision as to whether
or not to join:
Questions:
1: How can the
Coalition positively impact the disastrous situation that Messrs Williams,
Martin, Bennett and others have visited on the residents and taxpayers of this
Province?
2: What can the
Coalition do to prevent similar misadventures by future majority governments?
David Vardy responded as follows:
I am taking the liberty to offer my own feeble attempt to
answer your questions. At the same time I am inviting my MFCCC colleagues to
challenge me or to build upon what I have said. I am only one person and these
are my views only:
I believe the Commission has demonstrated its willingness to
listen to the public and that it has acted on advice given to it. On December
11, 2017 a panel discussion took place at Memorial University to bring forward
ideas to make the Inquiry successful. The panel seized on the need for the
Commission to begin by identifying the questions that need to be asked and they
wrote to the Commissioner. He responded by inviting the public to participate
and to identify important questions and the authority of the Inquiry to deal
with them. On the basis of this input he wrote his Interpretation, which to my
thinking, went as far as he could go to broaden the Inquiry within the scope of
the terms of reference within which he was working.
 |
| Judge Richard LeBlanc |
At an early stage the Commission engaged Grant Thornton to
undertake a forensic audit. It is difficult to imagine how such a step would
have been taken if not for the fact that the “anonymous engineer” spoke out on
the Uncle Gnarley Blog and on the CBC Morning Show. The Commissioner showed a
sensitivity and awareness of the concerns which were raised, not only with the
competence of those carrying out the project but also with their integrity.
Missing from the terms of reference was the relationship between government and
Nalcor. The Commissioner has seen fit to include this important missing
component through his broad interpretation.
Particularly encouraging was his paragraph 41 which reads as
follow:
"While there is some overlap between the issues to be
considered under terms 4(a) and 4(b), matters for consideration under 4(b) will
include such things as Nalcor's ability to oversee and manage a project of the
magnitude of the Muskrat Falls Project, whether construction scheduling for the
Project was reasonable, whether the contractual arrangements with contractors,
subcontractors, consultants and others, including embedded contractors, were
appropriately entered into in accordance with industry best practice, whether
any reports or risk assessments were obtained by Nalcor, who they were shared
with and how they were responded to by Nalcor. One such report will be the SNC
Lavalin Report dated April 23, 2013 which will merit particular attention by
the Commission. As well, I must consider whether appropriate or proper
consideration was given and actions taken regarding potential risk to the
environment, human safety and property related to the stability of the North
Spur and methylmercury contamination. How these reports or assessments were
received by Nalcor and whether they were made available to the Board of Nalcor
as well as the Government will also be a part of the investigation to be
conducted."The sentences in red refer to the SNC Lavalin report on risk and how the risk report entered into the complex relationship between Nalcor and government. Through the language marked in red the Commissioner has acknowledged the important role of environmental risks, along with human safety related to the North Spur and methyl mercury contamination. Without listening to the voices from the community he would have found it difficult to include these matters within his mandate.
These are examples of how the Commission is listening to the
public. They encourage us to believe that we can make a difference if we can
organize a strong Coalition to bring forward evidence and ideas that will help
the Commission.
The first guiding principle enunciated by the Commissioner in
his Interpretation of his Terms of Reference was Independence. Independence is
vital so that the Commission is not held prisoner by the expertise and resources
of Nalcor and of government. It will be a real challenge for the Commission to
find credible experts to present testimony critical of these entities which
wield so much power in our community. That is where the Coalition can
contribute enormously if it can attract the input of people like you, people
who know the energy business and how megaprojects are managed effectively.
The Commission can identify what actions led to the present
fiasco and put forward norms of behaviour which were violated and which must be
corrected if we as a society are to avoid such egregious mistakes in the
future. It can identify the failings in our governance and in our expectations
of what governments can do by taking risks on our behalf without weighing the
potential for inflicting great harm. The Commission can inform us of the
changes that need to be made in order to avoid such mistakes.
Your question focuses on what the Coalition can do. As you
know its effectiveness depends upon how much respect the Commission has for its
expertise and judgement and on what resources the Coalition can mobilize. There
is a lot of expertise in our community and the Coalition provides a mechanism
to harness it. We also have to recognize the limitations in our local capacity
and reach out to the international expertise which is so vital to the success
of a project like Muskrat Falls. |
| David Vardy |
The Coalition can identify witnesses that need to be called
and can bring before the Commission its views on best practices in policy
making and in project management. It can help the Commission to challenge
Nalcor, which has virtually unlimited resources and which can overwhelm the
Commission with information and defences of its actions. The Coalition has
access to expertise which can support the Commission and enhance its ability to
challenge Nalcor. The Muskrat Falls project is highly complex and difficult for
a Commissioner to understand in a relatively short span of time and without
prior knowledge. One of our main contributions must surely be to highlight
departures from best practice and identify people both locally and globally who
can provide a diagnosis and a sound prescription. We as a Coalition can focus
on a template of best practice against which the actions of government and
Nalcor can be measured.
We look upon the Inquiry as a forum whereby the community can
engage in a meaningful debate on the failure of our institutions and practices,
a debate which many have attempted to prompt without success. So many local
institutions have been unable to lay aside their own parochial self-interest to
advance the common good and that includes our University which has failed us in
this time of need.
The terms of reference for the Inquiry have limited scope to
address the shortcomings in our democratic system. The Coalition can urge the
Commission to go beyond the deficits in project management and policy
formulation and delve into the roots of our democratic system. We have to
acknowledge that the terms of reference limit the Commission’s ability to deal
with the fundamental democratic deficits which you have identified. Yet the
Commission can identify the democratic deficit as being at the core of the
problem and point to the directions from which a solution can be found. It can
confirm that democratic reform is the key issue and urge citizens and their
governments to make reform an overriding priority.
The Commission must examine the failure of government and
Nalcor to examine all energy options both on the demand and the supply side. It
must determine why the joint environmental panel and the PUB were ignored or
overruled. It must assess the projections and assumptions which led to the
sanctioning of Muskrat Falls. But it must go even further into the basic
decision-making process and into how government works or does not work.
Nature abhors a vacuum but there is a vacuum in public policy
dialogue and in understanding of public affairs. The Commission creates a
virtual “think tank” or laboratory for dissecting the failure of democracy. If
other key institutions in our society were more effective the Commission would
not have been necessary. The fundamental point is that the Commission is in
many ways the only recourse, the only forum within which we can evaluate future
options based on a full understanding as to how we got into this fiasco.
Our democracy is in thrall to three toxic factors: fear,
acceptance and silence. Government is too powerful and pervasive in this
province and has too much power, especially when the government in power has a
majority in the provincial parliament. Too many people depend upon government
for employment. There is fear of retribution when people speak out. There is
too much acceptance of the status quo: government by impulse rather than
government by rational planning and analysis. The most toxic of the trinity
which disables our democracy is silence. The Commission provides a forum to
empower those who have the courage to speak up. If they do not seize the
opportunity then the Coalition will be just as impotent as the Commission
itself.
One might throw up one’s hands in despair at our ability to
make a difference. That would be a terrible mistake. To remain silent in the
face of evil is itself a form of evil, as Bonhoeffer said. To embrace this
forum and participate is the best way we know to light a candle rather than
curse the darkness. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
men and women to do nothing. The burden of proof is upon those who reject the
Commission to light an alternative pathway, one which will propose reforms to
prevent future majority governments from inflicting great harm upon our small
province through fear, acceptance and silence.
David Vardy
