In a representative democracy referendum or plebiscites can be used for a more "direct" democracy on a law, a policy, a proposal or amendments to a constitution.
The question is - should there be a referendum on the proposed Emera - Muskrat Falls deal?
Let's look at the current situation regarding Muskrat Falls.
1. There is mass confusion on the positives and negatives of the proposed deal.
2. The Government has refused to open the House of Assembly to hold an Emergency Debate.
3. There have been no provincial consultations on the deal - where all parties are involved.
4. The Government has refused an extension to the Public Utilities Board.
5. The Government has used the Upper Churchill and relations with Quebec as a reason for the deal.
6. There are very opposing views from knowledgeable people, political, industrial, and advocates.
7. The deal has the potential to severely impact many generations of Newfoundland and Labrador.
8. The Opposition Parties were too weak in the last general election - leaving voters limited choice.
9. There are significant questions remaining from the Federal/Provincial Environmental Review.
10. The feeling by many citizens that their voice is not being heard on the proposed deal.
What could a referendum do for this particular deal?
Referendums can serve to provide more participation in the democratic process. This is something that is obviously needed considering the percentage of people voting in a general election.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has used the Upper Churchill and the subsequent relationship with Quebec to help sell the deal. This is so complex and so divisive that we as people need to understand what the cost of that continued purported feud is.
It would serve to give a real voice to experts and advocates who are opposed to the deal by allowing proper access to public communication - in order that the general population can equally hear both sides.
It would serve to eliminate suspicion of many that the government is ramming the deal through.
In the context of expenses incurred to do such a massive deal - it represents a minor contribution to the democratic process.
It would serve to put in place a new system for major deals in an effort to reduce the historic giveaways we have suffered.
It can serve to mobilize consent or discontent in the proposed deal.
It will serve to place a reasonable check and balance to the power of an elected government.
Most important it gives people real power and influence over significant social, economic, and political issues.
7 comments:
There is mass confusion on the positives and negatives of the proposed deal.
If the case...why would you put a vote to the people? Getting the facts out would be a good start
That's exactly the point. A referendum is a process - the information is provided first by all interested parties and debated openly. Then a vote would take place.
What information are you looking for? Let me know and I will get it to you
Who are you? Yes the information I want is an open debate process leading to a referendum. Thanks for the help - when shall I expect you to deliver it?
Yes the information I want is an open debate process leading to a referendum
Ya sure...you do not want information you want a process
No - I want a process that will deliver balnced information.
Sue and Anonomyous....for me a balanced process would compare the cost of producing power from MF with other alternatives.
Let's focus on wind, for example. There are a number of questions that NALCOR should have the anwers to:
1. What would it cost to build a wind farm and would you do it in given areas to take advantage of varying winds from one area to the next?
2. There are all kinds of micro-climates that produce wind at varying rates within close proximity. Can strategic placement of wind farms overcome most of the concerns about wind availability?
3. What would it cost to build a wind farm producing X number of Mws?
4. How many stand alone projects could be completed, such that a large building could generate sufficient wind power to meet its needs?
5. Could these systems store power with batteries for use when wind speeds are low?
6. Could we have systems whereby consumers could send excess power back into the main grid?
7. What would be the per Kw cost of production and how could such units be financed?
There are a number of other issues but it appears to me that wind is one of several options that could be used to meet our long term needs. These options could create long term jobs and new industry here, if given a chance, but they are not nearly as glamorous as a mega-project.
The Lower Churchill project, if developed at all, should include Gull Island and provide power for large industrial projects in Labrador. Sending it here is simply not economically viable, as it involves too many variables that could saddle us with an unbearable burden of debt.
Post a Comment