In his statement of March 11, former Premier Danny Williams said that “there was absolutely no finding by the commissioner of malfeasance, fraud or criminal activity, as was recklessly suggested by some. The simple reason being, it was not there to be found.”
The lack of such a finding tells us nothing. Section 7 of the commissioner’s terms of reference 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 is a standard clause included in such inquiries, for reasons beyond my space here but well explained by Justice John H. Gomery in a 2006 lecture entitled "The Pros and Cons of Commissions of Inquiry.” What must be understood is that the Muskrat Falls Inquiry was never going to delve into violations of civil or criminal law.
“Should the architects of Muskrat Falls go to the slammer?” This question was raised by Brian Jones in his Telegram column on March 18. This remains a key issue on which the commissioner did not opine because he was not permitted to do so.
This leaves it as an unanswered question, one which goes to the very heart of the concept of accountability of appointed and elected public officials.
We have no evidence to date, one way or another. While the commissioner concluded the project was “misguided” he was asked to turn a blind eye to any malfeasance. This needs to be understood clearly.
If we have any values worth preserving we must ensure that justice is meted out and that standards of probity are upheld. We must not turn a blind eye to the deceit and manipulation which surrounds this project. There must be consequences: loss of employment, loss of bonuses, loss of pensions and severance packages.
Each commissioner of the PUB holds office “during good behaviour.” This meant that each commissioner can be fired for “bad behaviour,” namely for some bias in judgment, breach of trust, violation of good conduct, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Surely senior executives at Nalcor must also be held to a similar test of “good behaviour?” The concept of good behaviour speaks to a code of behaviour that is expected of all public officials, appointed and elected.
Bad behaviour in this context does not depend upon a breach of civil or criminal law but it is justification for firing, with cause. In the case of appointed officials they can be fired by their employer. Are we going to excuse them because they might be deemed vital to complete the Muskrat Falls project, labelling them simply as misguided but not malfeasant?
Are elected officials to be given absolution because, in our legal system, we have no sanctions for “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Are we so devoid of values that we are prepared to forget about such “peccadillos” for this merely “misguided” project.
In the case of elected officials, particularly those who have already exited the stage, there may be no sanctions available, other than the opprobrium of the citizens who elected them, unless citizens demand that this is not good enough and that a higher level of accountability must be mandated.
What would that higher level of accountability look like? You decide.
David Vardy
St. John’s
