Danny Williams' inability to address the issues raised in the Grant Thornton Forensic Audit or answer for why the Commission of Inquiry is unable to find any detailed analysis performed by his Administration on the Muskrat Falls project seems not to have inspired in himself even a moment of reflection. Rather, he returned to the Inquiry evidently for his pound of flesh as early critics, David Vardy and Ron Penney, sat in front of the Commissioner, too.
Williams could be seen lurking on
the sidelines, the former Premier still hoping that some of his dignity might yet be
salvaged. He was waiting for his
brother, Tommy, to land a few body blows on Vardy and Penney. He left
disappointed.
Observing Tommy brought to mind a well-known citation
attributed to Napoleon, one I had hoped our legal counsel would be mindful of.
A paraphrasing of the adage might read: never interrupt your adversary when he is in the
process of self-destruction.
It was the Commissioner, however, who wisely intervened, perhaps
saving Williams from himself. “I'm not too concerned about all the
personalities involved,” said Judge LeBlanc adding, “I don't know what all the
love-hate relationships are, and to be quite honest with you I don't really
care about that.”
Who could argue?
Tommy Williams, acting as legal counsel for his brother and
other former NL Government officials, excluding Premier Dunderdale, was loudly
complaining that Uncle Gnarley had not joined the Vardy/Penney Panel.
Strangely, moments later Danny was telling the media: “I'm
suggesting that the credibility and the weight of the testimony of Mr. Vardy
and Mr. Penney is basically insignificant.” The former Premier added: “They're
not megaproject experts. They're not experts in anything that's really particularly
relevant to this inquiry.”
It's tough for even Danny Williams to have it both ways.
Stepping back from the mayhem that the Williamses had
engendered, it might be worth stating that every word I have ever uttered
relating to Muskrat has appeared on this Blog. It is all in the public sphere.
Vardy and Penney, on the other hand, have written significant interventions
directly to the provincial and federal governments, and made submissions
to the PUB during the DG2 reference. It made sense that the pair would have an opportunity to bring some
of those, and the analysis each bears, to light.
For my part, I am left to assume that both Danny and Tom were among the very late group of Uncle Gnarley readers which often catapults
the Blog’s pageview counter into overdrive. Can it be that the two have become
so enthralled with narratives like “In Praise of Public Floggings” and “The
Limits of Partisanship” that they crave to hear more?
Tommy Williams’ finest moment might have been when he
attributed a quote from the public floggings article to Dave Vardy. He was forced to beat a hasty retreat, having
been informed of his error. Of course, he had no apology!
In his parting interview with the press, Danny was critical in
two instances of the comments Vardy and Penney had made in answering questions.
The first was a reaction to Vardy’s reference to what rural
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are doing to reduce electricity, which is
to burn wood for heat. Mr. Williams asked if Mr. Vardy realized that wood
couldn’t replace electricity. Imagine Mr.Williams not having heard of the
invention of the wood stove.
The second related to a comment that Ron Penney made about the
end of the Upper Churchill contract in 2041 and whether the mechanism of
expropriation should be employed. Williams would know that the issue is both
complicated and moot, too. It is possible that his mistaken expropriation of the
Abitibi Grand Falls Mill – which left the Feds with a large bill after valuation and the Province another one for
demolition and environmental clean-up – still weighs.
But to the point, the worry is that, for Williams, the
exposures from the Inquiry are less about the facts than about scoring petty
victories.
Whatever we make of Napoleon’s wisdom, or lack of it, he
likely knew that his failures would eventually cause him to meet his Waterloo.
A society suffering from failed leadership in the 19th
century, as much as in the 21st, will exact a price. There are no exemptions,
even for Mr. Williams.
Still, a little humility from one whose boastful days are
covered in dark clouds, his legacy project now earning the tortuous scrutiny of a
Judge, might still engender forgiveness from his once adoring hordes.
While the prospect seems unlikely, Danny Williams should
wonder why, after $12.7 billion and the promise of a doubling of power rates
without subsidy, he deserves any forbearance at all.
