- November 19, 2012 - 12:58
I certaily agree to a referendum on muskrat falls. I am concerned that the people of this province are very confused about the project just as i am. I have read several articles but still it is not very clear. I have always felt that as voters who put these people in power our roll ends at the polling stations. Well this should change and we need to have more of a say of what goes on in our province.
- frank o'hara
- November 05, 2012 - 02:44
it is the responsibility of government to work in the best interest of the people . If the people feel the government is working against their best interest it is incumbant on them to seek a mandate . or put simply when ya want to pawn the family silver ya got to ask mom .
- Ken Ludlow
- November 04, 2012 - 18:33
Yes, we need a referendum, what are the PC's affraid of, I didn't see a place for support or no support of MF on my last ballot. I dont think anybody on the pc's will vote the way the people want them to vote, but will tow the party line.
- Winston Adams
- November 03, 2012 - 10:37
The PUB normally has the responsibility to protect us from the power companies making decisions that are detrimental to supplying lowest cost power. Nalcor was set up with special provisions to avoid that, and important alternatives, like efficiency, can be ignored.And our consumer advocate merely rubber stamped the Nalcor data. He showed himself to be the Nalcor advocate. Any process that short circuits the PUB is not ideal, even a referendum. Because this project ,and any alternative is technical, ALL reliable, economic alternatives should be assesses, and all reviewed by the PUB, where experts can be questioned. This should come before any referendum, as it will help define technical issues into layman language, where the voter can be in formed, instead of being misinformed by MHAs.
- Maurice E. Adams
- November 02, 2012 - 14:52
Muskrat Poll Results Todate Option 1 [9%] Option 2 [9%] Option 3 [29%] Option 4 [53%] HAVE YOUR SAY. Go to www.vision2041.com for details and to vote
- Cyril Rogers
- November 02, 2012 - 10:40
A referendum is the only DEMOCRATIC way to go on this project. The financial implications are too big for it not to be otherwise. For those who believe the electorate is too uninformed, or "too stunned" to understand it, I say this. While some aspects of this project may be technical and the engineering is complex, the bottom line is that we, the ordinary people of the province are the ones who will suffer most when, not if, the project runs billions of dollars over its projected costs. These DG3 numbers are suspect, at best, and we are being led like lambs to the financial slaughter by a government that is too stunned to explain it properly. All they are doing with their glossy ads is putting out motherhood and glib comments that most people can agree on but that have no real substance. If it is such a wonderful deal, I am sure they will have no trouble explaining the positives and negative to the great masses in clear and simple terms. For those who argue that the last election was their referendum on the project, you are full of "you know what". The numbers and the details have changed significantly since the last election, as has the government's rationale for the project. Also, since that time, the government, by using its heavy-handed approach of muting criticism, and dismissing all valid critics as "naysayers", has demonstrated its arrogance and lack of respect for all who have a different point of view. Bill 29 was, in large part, an effort to control the flow of information about this project, the PUB was given a very limited and narrow terms of reference, and the Opposition are being treated like children by government. I will accept the outcome of a referendum, whatever it is, but if we are going to put ourselves into a financial cesspit, then let the ordinary people of the province be the ones to do it.
- November 02, 2012 - 12:57
You think only some of the aspects are technical? Really? How about all of it. The only problem I see with a referendum is that public votes quickly turn into negative campaigns based on fear mongering. I can see it now "A vote against MF is vote against jobs" or "A vote for MF is a vote for bankruptcy". Like all other campaigns, the truth will be the first thing tossed aside.
- November 02, 2012 - 09:06
I don't know if a referendum is the way to go. This is a very technical issue that involves economics, finance and engineering knowledge. Most members of the public do not possess knowledge in any one of those fields. We need to make the right decision, not the popular decision. I would prefer to see this project handed over to a panel of MUN profs that would consist of representatives from their engineering, economics, and business schools. Let them review it make a recommendation, not to government, but to the public.
- Ken Collis
- November 03, 2012 - 07:08
Sorry, but MUN is a government body. There is nothing independant about them at all. They all know what side their bread is buttered on.
- Christopher Chafe
- November 02, 2012 - 07:46
Exactly Mr. Phelan, what we need is a referendum. We the payers of this project need to be able to voice our opinion in a non partisan way, and the only way to do that is to review all the facts concerning this project. We do not need some politician who is standing on his/her last leg to poke down our throats their perception of MF. If the people of NL vote for MF, then the Liberals and NDP will see that the people want this, and like wise if the people vote to reject MF then the PC's will see we don't want this risk. Then at the end of the day, Newfoundland can get on track to bring innovative industry to this province and keep our most important resource here........our people!