WHEN YOU THINK MUSKRAT, DO YOU BELIEVE “NEVER AGAIN”?

There are a few matters that need to be discussed before the details of the Muskrat Falls debacle test the patience of readers (as if they haven’t already).

Reflections on the past year, as the Inquiry examined a bevy of politicians, bureaucrats and consultants, leads essentially to a single question: how did so many people in positions of responsibility exclude themselves from common ethical norms and processes, as well as the “best practices” of their professions, affording themselves engagement in a lengthy, complicated, and costly plan of deception to achieve the sanction of such a reckless, state-sponsored project?

The question is only partly addressed here; the lengthy and diverse evidence supporting the mostly likely thesis — better coming from the Inquiry Commissioner anyway — would test most anyone’s patience. Still, the likelihood of Muskrat’s repeat is high. If the next one is not on that scale of “crazy” it is only because no one is foolish enough to lend us the money — not because the current political leadership is any less reckless. 

STAN MARSHALL’S MUSKRAT BARGAIN: CAVEAT EMPTOR!

Nalcor CEO Stan Marshall gave testimony this week at the Muskrat Falls Inquiry.  During his examination he referred to the need to see the “big picture” as to the economics of Muskrat Falls. He said that this can best be done by explaining the cost of Muskrat Falls in cents per Kilowatt Hour, which makes it easier to understand than by using large numbers in the millions and billions.

His theme was that the project is not really all bad, the costs not unreasonable. When you look closely a different picture emerges from the one Stan has presented. The “big picture” is not nearly as rosy. Was his presentation an attempt to explain away the “boondoggle” or to rationalize it? 

WHEN DOES DECEPTION BECOME A CRIME?

Guest Post by David Vardy
Have Nalcor and government officials transgressed against the law or have they simply neglected their duty to serve the province, notwithstanding the consequences of their actions? That is the question. 

Section 7 of the terms of reference of the Muskrat Falls Inquiry reads as follows:

“The commission of inquiry shall not express any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal responsibility of any person or organization.”

This suggests that any action based on legal transgressions must begin outside of the Inquiry. As the Inquiry progresses through its second phase there may be evidence which will point clearly to violations of civil and/or criminal law. The question now is whether sufficient information has been compiled to determine what recourse the people of the province have as a result of the injury and damage to the public good.

FIFTEEN TAKEAWAYS PHASE I MUSKRAT FALLS INQUIRY

Guest Post by Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens Coalition Members David Vardy, Ron Penney and Des Sullivan

Now that the second phase of the Inquiry has begun it may be helpful to take stock of where we are and what we have learned to date. 
Here are fifteen key issues on which the Inquiry Commissioner, Richard LeBlanc, must opine and about which the public should be informed. We have not attempted to assign priorities to them but we can say they that, while they are important, there are others issues that have been identified. We will post them another time.  

1.         When the Muskrat Falls project was sanctioned there was only a three per cent probability that the project would be completed on time, based on evidence provided by Nalcor’s risk consultant Richard Westney.

WILLIAMS TAKES WRONG PATH TO REDEMPTION

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. 

MUSKRAT FALLS COALITION GIVES FIRST REPORT

First Progress Report from Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens Coalition

Introduction

Some people have been asking what is happening with the Inquiry into the Muskrat Falls project. This is our first update. Next time, a web site, which is under development, will be ready. Future updates will be found there and that platform is expected to offer timely communication throughout the period of the Inquiry. 

What's Been Happening?

The Coalition was created to serve as an intervenor in the Muskrat Falls Inquiry. Upon invitation of the Commissioner the group submitted our interpretation of the TOR, as did a number of others. It can be found here.  The goals of the Inquiry are set out on the Inquiry Website, particularly in the Commissioner’s Interpretation of his Terms of Reference (TOR) here. 

FORTY QUESTIONS FOR THE INQUIRY JUDGE. PUBLIC SUPPORT SOUGHT.

David Vardy, Ron Penney and I have responded to the call of the Muskrat Falls Commission of Inquiry for submissions from the public on the interpretation of the Terms of Reference.

Our submission encourages the Commissioner to give the Terms of Reference a broad interpretation. It proposes a complete review of the project - one that provides full context for the public policy decision to announce and then sanction the project. It also seeks an investigation into matters relating to the management of the project and its long term effects on ratepayers and all the citizens of the province.