BEYOND REDEMPTION: NALCOR MEDDLES WITH INDEPENDENT PANEL

Surely there must be some aspect of the Muskrat Falls affair in which there is evidence that the public interest mattered? Actually, no. So far, the facts only show a myopic determination to get the project sanctioned. At the Inquiry, even the fundamental integrity of Nalcor senior management is now under scrutiny.

On the witness stand, Derek Owen confirmed email evidence that Paul Harrington, MF Project Director, attempted to influence the conclusions of a process known as a Cold Eyes Review. The Independent Review Panel (IRP) struck for the purpose was chaired by Owen. It was an electrifying moment to be sure, possibly in part because we may be witnessing how unfettered executive privilege becomes empowered in an atmosphere of political bombast. The Commission has not even been able to find government-prepared analysis of the project. Former Premier Williams was asked by the Commissioner to help locate the work. 

The Harrington story is serious business. 

Derek Owen ( Far Left Facing)

The IRP Report included a number of recommendations, including an expression of concern that the SNC-Lavalin and Nalcor Teams were not “aligned”, Nalcor having taken the Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Management (EPCM) Contract from SNC and put management of the project in the hands of an “integrated team“. That there were personality clashes among Team members, affecting performance, was clear. This titillating insight into how early in the game SNC’s role was downgraded was overshadowed, however, by the Report’s recommendations relating to contingency risk.

This is where Owen's testimony got interesting. 

Three days after the Final Report was presented to CEO Ed Martin, Paul Harrington contacted Derek Owen seeking changes. The IRP team had recommended that there be adequate cost and schedule allowances included in the total project costs at sanction. He wanted the word “recommendations” changed to “observations” and demanded that the specific phraseology applied to the need for appropriate contingencies be watered down.

Ultimately, Owen and another member of the IRP refused, stating that such changes made after the fact would be contrary to their Charter and to their professional ethics.

That the Project Director sought those changes not before — but after — CEO Ed Martin had received the Report, sets off a huge alarm. Harrington’s actions — whether at Ed Martin behest or not — calls into question the very integrity of the entire senior management group, one that pulled out every stop to keep the project going forward. 

The arrogance demonstrated was even further magnified by Harrington's email to Own in which he characterized the Report as a "Draft Report" when he would have known it was not. 

Why would Harrington want those changes made even after Ed Martin had been presented with the IRP findings? Who would read the Report except senior management, unless there were concerns, even then, that an Inquiry might eventually start poking around?

What Derek Owen was asked to address is not some vague allegation by an ardent critic. Rather, his disclosures — actually the Commission’s — puts on trial the very process by which a project like Muskrat achieves conviction among official bodies and earns credibility (or derision) from the public. 

Owen, like IRP Member John Mallam the previous day, explained exactly why something now proven to be a debacle actually never ever passed the “smell test”. The contingency allowances needed by any development — backyard shed or megaproject — were not in evidence, and the IRP was compelled to note the fact for thoroughness and so that the Gatekeeper — Ed Martin — was warned. And that is exactly what they did.

Bad enough that such things transpire in some private sector offices; but must it go on in a nascent Crown Corporation where braggadocio is the only asset on the balance sheet not encumbered by the bondholders?

What people need to take from this seemingly tawdry business is that concepts of “energy warehouse” or notions of public interest are absent. This is about attitude: a manifest sense of entitlement. It is about the overarching belief of Harrington and others that they possess a right to meddle even in an independent review process; one established, ostensibly, for the purpose of assessing their performance as much as critical omissions from the project costs and its readiness for sanction.

As important as any other issue is the fact that Harrington’s interference telegraphs a message to all. The message is: as part of our strategy, we will eliminate any opposition to this project.

And Nalcor didn’t brook opposition. They completely ignored or belittled the views of the Joint Review Panel, the Public Utilities Board and, now, the Cold Eyes Review. Then, too, the arguments of Vardy, Penney and others were deemed invalid; Nalcor ignored all opposition to Muskrat.

There is a line by Al Pacino’s iconic character Michael Corleone in the film The Godfather: Part III which seems to suit the current circumstance. Modified with a plural pronoun it would read: “They are beyond redemption.”

The changes Harrington sought found no correspondence with anything related to duty; it was all about licence. For him, as for Martin and the others, there are no bounds. There is only the belief that “I do what I want, no rules apply to me.”

Michael Corleone would have readily understood what Nalcor stands for.