If the Administration of either Premier Furey or Premier Hogan attempted to include the public and seek their advice, it is likely that one of the worst deals ever negotiated – the Churchill Falls Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – would never have earned the status even of a footnote in Newfoundland and Labrador history.
Instead, their right to influence how the history of the Upper Churchill should be righted manifested as a propaganda campaign, one that could not be supported with the facts. When members of the public sought certainty in the details – absent NL Hydro’s filter – they were greeted with a document whose dissection challenged some of the best and brightest financial analysts in the province.
Economist and former senior public servant, David Vardy, spoke with CBC Corner Brook’s Morning Show recently. Picking up where he left off after posting several detailed explanations of the reasons that the MOU failed to serve the best interests of NL, he spoke to the CBC recently about what needs to happen differently. On the heels of Premier Wakeham’s promise to subject the terms of the MOU to independent review and to ultimately refer any final deal to a referendum, Vardy reflected on what those initiatives might mean.
Aired by the CBC in two parts, Vardy explains to reporter Leigh Anne Power the importance of independent review, how such a review should be constituted, and how an arms-length approach can be achieved. He describes the current deal in a way that every person can understand and raises options that the Furey Administration may not have considered.
Most importantly, the former Chair of the Public Utilities Board and ardent critic of the Muskrat Falls project outlines what needs to happen to prepare the public to make an informed decision when a referendum is finally called.
The links to both parts of the CBC Morning interview are found here and here.
