I was intrigued by Colin Mayes’ letter in response to Elizabeth May not because he publicly proclaims his “fellowship” with Ms. May, not because he is still refuting what scientists the world over are saying about climate change, and not because of his doom and gloom prediction about what people will think of his letter.
Instead, I was intrigued by the claims made by Mr. Mayes in the latter half of his letter.
He states, “I and my party are committed to green house gas reductions and eliminating air and water pollution.”
The Globe and Mail, however, on Oct. 24, 2013, reported that, “Canada is falling well short of its international commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and the Harper government is offering no plan to close the gap.”
This was taken from a report released by Environment Canada.
Mr. Mayes goes on to say that, “We have enacted numerous bills to make environmental protection criteria to any resource material more comprehensive.”
Now, putting aside the temptation to attack that claim solely on the basis of its exemplary use of double-speak, Mr. Mayes assertion flies directly in the face of an analysis published in may of 2012 by West Coast Environmental Law and Ecojustice that states that changes to Bill C-38 (one of Mr. Harper’s omnibus bills) mean, “an entirely new, and less comprehensive, environmental assessment law” with, “weakened protection for fish and species at risk” and, “less accountability and fewer opportunities for public participation.”
In his closing statements, Mr. Mayes says that, “Statements like the ones made my the leader of the Green Party only provoke fear and not solutions.”
I’m wondering, Mr. Mayes, if you could, in the space of another letter to this publication, explain just how gutting the laws governing environmental assessments in Canada could in any way be considered a solution.
I’m sure there are a lot of us that will appreciate your response. Thank you in advance.
Mark Levey
Enderby
