Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

https://goo.gl/4uthC3 Message Sent 26 Jan. 18 Regarding...





















https://goo.gl/4uthC3 Message Sent 26 Jan. 18 Regarding Independent Submission to Justice Richard LeBlanc about the Terms of Reference of Commission Nalcor Muskrat Falls @protectlabrador @HuffPostCanada @observer @guardianeco @nytimes @TheEconomist @spectator @thesundaytimes

Message Sent 26 January 2018 Regarding Independent Submission to Commissioner, The Honourable Justice Richard LeBlanc about the Terms of Reference of Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls project. Llewelyn Pritchard MA 

Submitted 1: ‘Share Your Comments’ @ https://www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project Commissioner The Honourable Justice Richard LeBlanc

Submitted 2: [email protected]
Today’s Date: 26 January 2018

Dear Justice Leblanc
Since Your Terms of Reference [TR] must be considered in context and since, “7. The commission of inquiry shall not express any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal responsibility of any person or organization.” It is my submission that your TR is a good example of bad, clang, crash, machine code!!!


I humbly submit that your Commission’s TR represent dishonourable practice - lacking in honesty and integrity for what they leave out as much as for what they leave in. Your TR do not honourably represent the safety, health and environmental issues deeply concerning Labradorians and all those good people who understand the damage caused by hydro dams. Who wrote the shameful TR and why?


It’s style reminds me of smart civil service gobbledygook obviously trying to ‘pull the wool over the eyes’ of everybody who reads it. Yout TR is so opaque, unclear and unspecific, for example “risk assessments” for whom? Certainly not for those most likely to be affected by the project! So who are the so called “risk assessments” really for?  


Who are the TR really for?


Your TR means your Commission of Inquiry will fundamentally be a waste of time.


Your TR fail to prioritize the humanitarian needs of everybody who will be affected by the project.


They fail to include a provision to halt construction until you publish your findings? Surely by not doing so, your TR betray the very trust of those people you are meant to serve?


How can anybody have trust and confidence in your results? Your TR taken in context are worthless because just like the madness of the Muskrat Falls construction project they are attempting to ignore public opposition in their path.


I take no pleasure whatsoever in continuing to ‘gut’ your TR [in context!!!]…How can the Commission rightfully and properly consider the “participation in the inquiry by the established leadership of Indigenous people, whose settled or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights to areas in Labrador may have been adversely affected by the Muskrat Falls Project” when Canada is not fully signed up to the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People? Surely that makes certain your Commission’s findings will lack credibility?


How well-informed were the indigenous leaders in the first place? Application of established principles of Free Consent, Prior Consent and Informed Consent about indigenous land rights around the hydro project have blatantly been abused and disrespected by the Governments and Nalcor.


Surely your TR should be immediately consigned to the dustbin of history?


Or should they be re-written with a genuine, real sense of urgency, priority, honour and integrity?


In other words, start again Justice Richard Leblanc or do the honourable thing.


Yours sincerely
Llewelyn Pritchard MA


Source/Background Information:
“Terms of reference
4. The commission of inquiry shall inquire into
(a) the consideration by Nalcor of options to address the electricity needs of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Island interconnected system customers that informed Nalcor’s decision to recommend that the government sanction the Muskrat Falls Project, including whether
(i) the assumptions or forecasts on which the analysis of options was based were reasonable,
(ii) Nalcor considered and reasonably dismissed options other than the Muskrat Falls Project and the Isolated Island Option, and
(iii) Nalcor’s determination that the Muskrat Falls Project was the least-cost option for the supply of power to Newfoundland and Labrador Island interconnected system over the period 2011-2067 was reasonable with the knowledge available at that time;
(b) why there are significant differences between the estimated costs of the Muskrat Falls Project at the time of sanction and the costs by Nalcor during project execution, to the time of this inquiry together with reliable estimates of the costs to the conclusion of the project including whether
(i) Nalcor’s conduct in retaining and subsequently dealing with contractors and suppliers of every kind was in accordance with best practice, and, if not, whether Nalcor’s supervisory oversight and conduct contributed to project cost increases and project delays,
(ii) the terms of the contractual arrangements between Nalcor and the various contractors retained in relation to the Muskrat Falls Project contributed to delays and cost overruns, and whether or not these terms provided sufficient risk transfer from Nalcor to the contractors,
(iii) the overall project management structure Nalcor developed and followed was in accordance with best practice, and whether it contributed to cost increases and project delays,
(iv) the overall procurement strategy developed by Nalcor for the project to subdivide the Muskrat Falls Project into multiple construction packages followed industry best practices, and whether or not there was fair and competent consideration of risk transfer and retention in this strategy relative to other procurement models,
(v) any risk assessments, financial or otherwise, were conducted in respect of the Muskrat Falls Project, including any assessments prepared externally and whether
(A) the assessments were conducted in accordance with best practice,
(B) Nalcor took possession of the reports, including the method by which Nalcor took possession,
© Nalcor took appropriate measures to mitigate the risks identified, and
(D) Nalcor made the government aware of the reports and assessments, and
(vi) the commercial arrangements Nalcor negotiated were reasonable and competently negotiated;
© whether the determination that the Muskrat Falls Project should be exempt from oversight by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities was justified and reasonable and what was the effect of this exemption, if any, on the development, costs and operation of the Muskrat Falls Project; and
(d) whether the government was fully informed and was made aware of any risks or problems anticipated with the Muskrat Falls Project, so that the government had sufficient and accurate information upon which to appropriately decide to sanction the project and whether the government employed appropriate measures to oversee the project particularly as it relates to the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to ©, focusing on governance arrangements and decision-making processes associated with the project.”
“Conclusion or recommendations limited
7. The commission of inquiry shall not express any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal responsibility of any person or organization.”
Additional pertinent background information:
NB. This is a complete copy of the official version with bold highlighting added for ease of reference.
Copyright ©2017: Queen’s Printer,
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Important Information
(Includes details about the availability of printed and electronic versions of the Statutes.)
Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation 2017
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
REGULATION 101/17
Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project Order under the Public Inquiries Act, 2006 (O.C. 2017 - 339) (Filed November 20, 2017)
Under the authority of section 3 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2006, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council makes the following Order.
Dated at St. John’s, November 20, 2017.
Ann Marie Hann
Clerk of the Executive Council
ORDER
Analysis
1. Short title
2. Definitions
3. Commission of inquiry established
4. Terms of reference
5. Commission’s considerations
6. Findings and recommendations
7. Conclusion or recommendations limited
8. Special expertise services
9. Final report
Short title
1. This Order may be cited as the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project Order.
Definitions
2. In this Order
(a) “government” means the government of the province;
(b) “Isolated Island Option” means the isolated island option as defined in the June 17, 2011 reference question to the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities;
© “Muskrat Falls Project” means the Muskrat Falls Project, as defined in subsection 2.1(1) of the Energy Corporation Act; and
(d) “Nalcor” means Nalcor Energy and its subsidiaries;
Commission of inquiry established
3. There is established a commission of inquiry respecting the Muskrat Falls Project and the Honourable Richard D. LeBlanc is appointed as the sole member of the commission.
Terms of reference
4. The commission of inquiry shall inquire into
(a) the consideration by Nalcor of options to address the electricity needs of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Island interconnected system customers that informed Nalcor’s decision to recommend that the government sanction the Muskrat Falls Project, including whether
(i) the assumptions or forecasts on which the analysis of options was based were reasonable,
(ii) Nalcor considered and reasonably dismissed options other than the Muskrat Falls Project and the Isolated Island Option, and
(iii) Nalcor’s determination that the Muskrat Falls Project was the least-cost option for the supply of power to Newfoundland and Labrador Island interconnected system over the period 2011-2067 was reasonable with the knowledge available at that time;
(b) why there are significant differences between the estimated costs of the Muskrat Falls Project at the time of sanction and the costs by Nalcor during project execution, to the time of this inquiry together with reliable estimates of the costs to the conclusion of the project including whether
(i) Nalcor’s conduct in retaining and subsequently dealing with contractors and suppliers of every kind was in accordance with best practice, and, if not, whether Nalcor’s supervisory oversight and conduct contributed to project cost increases and project delays,
(ii) the terms of the contractual arrangements between Nalcor and the various contractors retained in relation to the Muskrat Falls Project contributed to delays and cost overruns, and whether or not these terms provided sufficient risk transfer from Nalcor to the contractors,
(iii) the overall project management structure Nalcor developed and followed was in accordance with best practice, and whether it contributed to cost increases and project delays,
(iv) the overall procurement strategy developed by Nalcor for the project to subdivide the Muskrat Falls Project into multiple construction packages followed industry best practices, and whether or not there was fair and competent consideration of risk transfer and retention in this strategy relative to other procurement models,
(v) any risk assessments, financial or otherwise, were conducted in respect of the Muskrat Falls Project, including any assessments prepared externally and whether
(A) the assessments were conducted in accordance with best practice,
(B) Nalcor took possession of the reports, including the method by which Nalcor took possession,
© Nalcor took appropriate measures to mitigate the risks identified, and
(D) Nalcor made the government aware of the reports and assessments, and
(vi) the commercial arrangements Nalcor negotiated were reasonable and competently negotiated;
© whether the determination that the Muskrat Falls Project should be exempt from oversight by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities was justified and reasonable and what was the effect of this exemption, if any, on the development, costs and operation of the Muskrat Falls Project; and
(d) whether the government was fully informed and was made aware of any risks or problems anticipated with the Muskrat Falls Project, so that the government had sufficient and accurate information upon which to appropriately decide to sanction the project and whether the government employed appropriate measures to oversee the project particularly as it relates to the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to ©, focusing on governance arrangements and decision-making processes associated with the project.
Commission’s considerations
5. The commission of inquiry, in carrying out the terms of reference referred to in section 4 shall consider
(a) participation in the inquiry by the established leadership of Indigenous people, whose settled or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights to areas in Labrador may have been adversely affected by the Muskrat Falls Project;
(b) the need to provide consumers in the province with electricity at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service;
© the powers, duties and responsibilities of a Crown Corporation;
(d) the need to balance commercial considerations and public accountability and transparency in carrying out a large-scale publicly-funded project; and
(e) the need to balance the interests of ratepayers and the interests of taxpayers in carrying out a large-scale publicly-funded project.
Findings and recommendations
6. The commission of inquiry shall make findings and recommendations that it considers necessary and advisable related to section 4.
Conclusion or recommendations limited
7. The commission of inquiry shall not express any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal responsibility of any person or organization.
Special expertise services
8. The commission of inquiry may engage the services of persons having special expertise or knowledge including those with financial, engineering and construction expertise.
Final report
9. The commission of inquiry shall terminate its work and deliver the final report to the Minister of Natural Resources, who shall be the minister responsible for the commission of inquiry, on or before December 31, 2019.
———————
[ https://goo.gl/LMhpWj Message Sent 26 January 2018 Regarding Independent Submission to Commissioner The Honourable Justice Richard LeBlanc about the Terms of Reference of Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls project. Llewelyn Pritchard MA ]



This post first appeared on Books For Sale With FREE Ebooks, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

https://goo.gl/4uthC3 Message Sent 26 Jan. 18 Regarding...

×

Subscribe to Books For Sale With Free Ebooks

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×