Northern Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1977Publisher: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Canada
Year Published: 1977
Pages: 12pp Price: free
Resource Type: Serial Publication (Periodical)
Cx Number: CX473
This issue of Northern Perspectives contains two major articles, one titled 'Thoughts on Canada's Energy' and the other 'There is no such thing as a little garlic.'
Abstract: This issue of Northern Perspectives contains two major articles, one titled 'Thoughts on Canada's Energy' and the other 'There is no such thing as a little garlic.'
'Thoughts on Canada's Energy' is an analysis and critique of two major documents trying to develop a Canadian Energy Policy. In these policy papers 'Energy Policy Analysis of 1973' and 'The Energy Strategy Paper of 1976' there has been a considerable shift in energy policy in a matter of three years. The author goes on to analyze these changes and to critique the shift, offering his views on what he feels the government has learned and has not learned. Included is analysis on how and where the taxpayer always ends up paying.
'There is no such thing as a little garlic' critiques the energy question in relation to the constitution: " The issue is not the mismanagement of energy resources or of frontier incompetence. The fundamental question is constitutional. It has to do with the inability of our political institutions to deal with changing circumstances". Inherent in the author's position is the question of power: by concentrating the power in the hands of the few and taking away the power of the people, the government has effectively alienated themselves from their constituency and as a result, the public have become immobilized, neutralized and apathetic.
The Author presents his argument in the context of regulatory boards and corporations, and how the regulations set up to govern these agencies are such that they ultimately are accountable to themselves and therefore, by-pass public review and accountability. The author maintains that the most part, are not in parliament - that is not the elected representatives of the people.
Using the pipeline debate as the case study, the author maintains that what is at stake are moral foundations and that "The debate is not only about a pipeline but about our institutions and freedoms. We are asking whether self-reliance, dignity, and respect for liberty can exist in a modern technological society."