A few days ago - Minister of Transportation and Works - Paul Davis - compared engineers to lawyers - put ten of them in a room and you get 10 different opinions. This was in response to a question by the talk-show host basically asking what or when we can determine if work needs to be done on infrastructure such as roads and bridges.
That's a scary and misguided thought and it makes me wonder what Paul Davis really knows about his portfolio and if his knowledge is that weak - what exactly his "officials" can get away with.
If engineers - particularly Civil Engineers - are likely to fail on structures at the same frequency as lawyers lose in Court - I recommend we all stay off the roads and bridges.
Whether a road or bridge is need of immediate repair is not a hit and miss sort of thing. How about water resources engineering? Should we expect the engineers doing hydro dams or predicting water flow to tell us we have a 50-50 chance of being successful?
How about structures like hospitals and schools? Should we expect our engineers to tell us - if it falls down - no worry - we can appeal?
Using engineers "opinions" as an excuse for ignoring old and failing infrastructure is ridiculous - using engineers "opinions" as an excuse for replacing infrastructure that is being stressed by increased usage the structure was not designed to take is outrageous. If Minister Davis was telling the truth - please provide the numerous and differing opinions on any one infrastructure in the province.
If we listen to Minister Davis - we have to believe that 10 engineers went out to look at a road or culvert or bridge - and 10 of them came back with different opinions on the safety of the structure.
An engineer - if asked professionally - whether or not a road or bridge is safe - must be as accurate as a brain surgeon.
Are there incompetent surgeons and engineers? Yes. Have there been instances of catastrophic failure in engineering? Yes. Have there been instances where an engineer was paid to falsify a report? Yes. Have there been instances where an engineer feels pressure by an employer to deliver information the employer wants to hear - accurate or not? Yes. Thankfully these engineers represent a very small percentage within the profession and although catastrophes have occurred - for the most part we live, work, and traverse over very safe structures.
What I want to know from Minister Davis is what road and bridge structures his departmental engineers studies and how many of them came back with differing opinions and whether or not engineers we employ fall among the examples listed above?
The Dunderdale government has proven that it keeps getting reports done until it gets the report it likes. While unethical and despicable - up until now - it has not caused me great concern regarding safety - but rather more concern about debt, deficits, and wasting taxpayer dollars.
I am deeply concerned about the comment made by Minister Davis. Is he implying by ignorance that we have engineers employed that are more interested in serving their political masters than serving their profession and through that public safety? Is he implying that engineering work on Muskrat Falls may be in question - as the engineers might be giving the go ahead on dams and structures simply because the politicians want it to proceed?
Lawyers and Engineers are expected to give expert opinions - however the guarantees on the opinions are very different. Convincing a judge or jury of your client's position is one thing - guaranteeing the safety of infrastructure is another. Proving or not proving a defendant guilty is one thing - but guaranteeing that a hospital won't collapse is another.
Question for Minister Davis and the rest of Cabinet: Is there any engineer questioning any part of the Muskrat Falls development? Is there any engineer offering an opinion that the dam or other hydro structures may be unsafe? If so - release that information. Based on what Minister Davis said on roads and bridges; we may have other opinions on whether or not Muskrat Falls can be developed as currently engineered.
Is this the case - or did Minister Davis utter nonsense when faced with a basic question that he had no ability to answer?
No comments:
Post a Comment