Conservatives Say Fisheries Act Was Not Meant to Protect ‘Puddles’

Almost a full year after the fact, the Conservatives are changing their tune regarding the reasons behind changes to the Fisheries Act and major water pollution legislation.

A statement on the Conservatives' website outlines the administration’s commitment to Canadian fisheries which entails spending millions of dollars to support scientific activity relevant to the industry, such as “eliminating paperwork for low-risk projects to ensure we can dedicate more resources to protecting real fisheries from major threats.”

The site suggests the real reason for the changes to the Fisheries Act was due to the impracticality of treating all bodies of water “from puddles to the Great Lakes” as if they were the same. The site claims opposition parties are propagating the wrong message about the change.

But the reason for the changes has been unclear and Conservative Ministers have been inconsistent in their explanations.

In June of last year, Postmedia’s Mike De Souza reported that Fisheries and Oceans Minister Keith Ashfield suggested changes were intended to make way for industry facilities to pollute water.

“There are currently few tools to authorize pollution other than by detailed regulations,” Ashfield wrote in a letter to Todd Panas, president of the Union of Environment Workers.

“For example, the amended Fisheries Act will provide flexibility and establish new tools to authorize deposits of deleterious substances.” Ashfield didn’t explain his comments last year and has not yet been available to explain the statement on the Conservatives website either.

Former Conservative Fisheries Minister Thomas Siddon spoke out against the changes, De Souza reported, saying he believed they would undermine Canada’s environmental protections as well as compromise the Minister’s constitutional responsibility to safeguard fisheries.

In her comments regarding the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act last summer, Green Party leader Elizabeth May asked "Why would we make changes in this place that would do such damage to the linchpin of environmental protection in Canada?"