Green Cove proposal not ecologically sound

In their letter of July 2 (‘Straight talk on National Parks Act, Cape Breton Post), Ray and Audrey Stapleton cite the Act to suggest that Green Cove would be a suitable location for the proposed ‘Mother Canada’ war memorial.

This claim can be briefly rebutted.

Under the Act, every part and zone of every national park is protected from any development detrimental to either its ecological and commemorative integrity.

Within those strict limits a range of appropriate enhancements are indeed permitted, but only on condition that the site’s basic integrity is maintained. And as the 28 retired Parks Canada senior managers wrote in their open letter to Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, the ‘Mother Canada’ development demonstrably and spectacularly fails both these key tests set by the act.

In terms of ecology, pouring concrete over a half a billion years of earth history, fragile natural beauty and precious biodiversity would obviously constitute an act of irreparable ecological vandalism.

And throughout the history of Parks Canada, appropriate ‘commemoration’ has been understood to refer to existing cultural artifacts and heritage, rather than the importation and imposition of entirely new structures.

But even if the ‘Mother Canada’ extravaganza could somehow be justified as legitimate commemoration, it obviously cannot be plausibly presented as ecologically sound.

If interpretations of the National Parks Act can be stretched to allow a private developer (with government assistance) to turn Green Cove into ‘Concrete Cove’, the whole national parks system will itself lose all integrity.

Sean Howard

Spokesperson, Friends of Green Cove Main-a-Dieu

I had to respond to ‘Another Perspective on Prayer Debate’ (letter to the editor, Cape Breton Post, June 25).

This is an example of creative thinking by Cape Bretoners. The suggested vision statement would impact every one of us. It could start with the fundamental strengths and needs that we all have in common in this ‘web of relationships’ called CBRM.

I hope CBRM council will include one of these writers on the committee that may be struck with the

task of wording this important document.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer the letter writers and the members of council my appreci- ation.

Sharon Unsworth

Sydney River