The Muskrat Falls proposed development project has finally driven many people to become involved.
The size, scope, risk, and importance of developing this natural resource should interest and be of concern to all people in our province.
I hear the Premier and her colleagues complain and moan about critics and chastise anybody who speaks in any other manner than full-on support of the proposed deal.
Let's get a few things straight.
1. The government has spent a fortune of our money getting documents prepared and studies/analysis done to "prove" the worthiness of the deal. "Independent" reports, "independent" support, and "independent" voices Dunderdale proclaims. In other words our money for one-sided information.
2. The government has thwarted real involvement of the PUB which is the ratepayers authority and one which is supposed to make the call when spending goes on related to domestic supply.
3. The government did not accept the findings of the joint panel review. Another protection of the people and society at large regarding natural resource development.
4. The government has not agreed to a referendum despite the democratic merits of doing such.
5. The government is not allowing citizens to participate in a real debate between government representatives and experts in the populace.
6. The government is not allowing shareholders of the resource an opportunity to vote on such a rare and massive undertaking.
7. Nalcor is bullying Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - or NLH is not acting completely on its mission statement or mandate.
8. Kathy Dunderdale, Danny Williams, and other PC MHA's are ignoring very real concerns and risks placed before them by reputable people (mostly Newfoundlanders and Labradorians).
9. Kathy Dunderdale has yet to present polls demonstrating overwhelming support (75% +) of the deal.
10. The government is not allowing proper and thorough review of the opposing side.
If a government is truly interested in averting another fiasco like the Upper Churchill it would go out of its way to examine the "other side". That is to say make available the tens of millions they have spent on the "positive" potentials to examine the "negative" potentials.
If the entities that are reviewing are using assumptions and numbers thrust upon them by Nalcor (government) they will not achieve a real review of the deal.
If government were truly interested in vetting the deal and bringing true scrutiny to it they would allow competent citizens who have expressed opposition to the deal to have access to millions of dollars to study opposite or different assumptions.
This is what should happen through a referendum process but in the absence of that - monies should be granted for review by those citizens who vehemently oppose the deal.
The real deal is that it's being pushed down our throats and they will never have to pay any consequence if they are wrong. Booting them out of office is not the appropriate punishment for those who may cause generational destruction to our well being.
Next up will be Options A - B - C - D - how the establishment hedges its political bets. That includes the privatization of our hydro assets particularly Gull Island.
1 comment:
Sue you stated that,..." The real deal is that it's being pushed down our throats and they will never have to pay any consequence if they are wrong. Booting them out of office is not the appropriate punishment for those who may cause generational destruction to our well being."
IF this deal turns out to be as bad as you and I expect, there truly ought to be charges amounting to gross negligence brought against all of the politicians who vote in favour of sanctioning Muskrat Falls. Nothing in our history has had the potential to financially strangle us to the extent that this deal does and I am very fearful of the long-term consequences. It is a situation that cries out for sober second thought, because the ramifications are potentially so disastrous.
This one process reinforces my strong belief that true political reform includes people being actively able to support or reject a specific proposal through a vote or referendum. It is simply not good enough that a government which gained a majority, with the support of only 35% of the eligible voters, should consider that level of support to be a mandate to initiate such a far-reaching project, without the people's blessing. In my opinion, it is unconscionable and reek of systemic and political corruption.
Post a Comment