Amendments to Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations

Summary#

This is a proposed change to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations announced on November 1, 2025. It would clarify and expand what regulators can authorize when pesticides are used to control aquatic invasive species, and make it easier to change or cancel those authorizations.

What it does#

• Allows regulators listed under the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations to explicitly authorize the deposit of substances that are named on a pesticide’s label when used together with the pesticide. Examples named in the proposal include detoxifying or neutralizing agents (often called deactivating agents), agents to remove taste and odours, reactants, and utility modifier adjuvants.
• Makes the directions (conditions) written on an authorization binding on the person who receives it. Not following those directions could lead to enforcement action under the Fisheries Act.
• Gives regulators the power to amend, suspend, or cancel an existing authorization without requiring a whole new application.
• Updates references to two provincial ministers so the regulation is less likely to become outdated when job titles change.
• The notice invites public comments for 30 days after publication (this is a proposal, not a final change).

Who's affected#

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada and other regulators in provinces and territories who issue authorizations under the AISR.
• Groups that apply for authorizations to treat water for invasive species, such as municipal governments, Indigenous groups and communities, non-governmental conservation organizations, property owner associations, and professional pesticide applicators.
• Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency and other federal partners were consulted; their roles in pesticide assessment remain separate.
• People and communities near water where chemical control of invasive species is proposed — for example, drinking-water users, fishers, and Indigenous communities — could notice these changes if a treatment is planned.
• If anything is unclear in who will be affected, the regulation text and DFO guidance will be the deciding source.

Why it matters#

• It fills a legal gap. Right now, regulators have been allowing some companion substances (like deactivating agents) by policy, but the regulations did not clearly authorize them. The change would put that practice into the rules.
• It creates clearer enforcement rules. Making authorization directions mandatory helps ensure project proponents follow safety and environmental limits and gives regulators a clear basis to act if they do not.
• It should make small administrative improvements for proponents. Allowing amendments instead of forcing full re-submissions can save time when plans change.
• The government says the change is mainly legal housekeeping and is not expected to increase pesticide use or cause new environmental harms; regulators already consider risks case by case. Some Indigenous groups and stakeholders asked for stronger engagement and risk information during consultation, and DFO says it will continue those practices.