Let us have our say

Dear editor:

Premier Tony Wakeham has pressed ‘delete’ on his promised referendum on a new Churchill Falls deal. Once in government, he pressed ‘pause’ on the MOU of the Liberal administration, needing it as a framework for a revised deal. Now that too is deleted. All along Mr. Wakeham claimed there was plenty of time and we need not be in a rush in negotiating a deal. Now it is ‘fast forward’ and there are timelines in place. What has changed?

According to Wakeham, it was cancelled due the feds’ involvement, the political climate in Quebec and favourable market opportunities – or something like that. It sounds vague to me and feels dismissive. It is certainly not self-explanatory. Are we being pressured by the other parties to get it done quickly? There is an African saying, “The times are urgent, let us slow down.”

The purpose of the referendum was to give the people a direct vote on the Churchill Falls deal, to approve or reject it. This would avoid partisan politics, allowing this vote to be the final word. This would prevent a repetition of the consequences of the 1969 contract in which the public had no say, and the whole process was controlled by the government.

While governments claim to endorse the principle that resources belong to the people, rarely does a government invite voters to have a say in major resource developments. This government had done so loud and clear by promising a referendum on the new Churchill Falls agreement. Now it has been cancelled.

You don’t cancel a referendum. You make it happen. Was it ever a serious choice? Are we ready to implement a referendum? If a referendum was called now, is there a plan – nuts and bolts – in place to make it happen? One of the drawbacks of a referendum is that the electorate can reject the deal. What then? Not a scenario a government wants to face.

Instead of a referendum, the House will meet to debate and review the tentative Churchill Falls energy agreement. What difference will the debate make? If there is a vote – along party lines – the government can simply rubber-stamp its existing deal.

In spite of cancelling the referendum, Mr. Wakeham wants to hear from the people of the province. A few people talking to their MHA is not exactly the voice of the people.

Will this be another ‘top-down’ performance in which government just goes its own way, arrogantly excluding others? Will politicians ever learn from history how governments keep making mistakes because they don’t listen? Perhaps members of government should read or reread the report on the Muskrat Falls inquiry. It concluded the government was determined to proceed with the project ‘through the lens of political bias and unrealistic optimism.’ It refers to ‘concealed information’ and making efforts ‘to narrow consultants term’ to forestall an independent review while producing reports to favour the undertaking.

Among the report’s recommendations, two are relevant to the current negotiations: (1) To ensure independent monitoring of large capitol projects; (2) To require independent expert evaluation and well-defined risk assessments before sanctioning any public capitol project exceeding $50 million.

Without a referendum or some other form of engagement, citizens will be unable to engage in a meaningful debate or have a say about a new Churchill Falls deal. We were promised we would have a say. How will this happen?

Everett Hobbs,

CBS