Aquatic Invasive Species Regulation Changes

Summary#

This is a proposed change to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). It would clarify that regulators can allow certain substances used together with pesticides, make directions on authorizations enforceable, and let regulators amend, suspend or cancel authorizations. The proposal was published in the Canada Gazette on November 1, 2025 and people can comment for 30 days.

What it does#

• Clarifies that people who authorize pesticide treatments for aquatic invasive species can also authorize other substances identified on the pesticide label when used with the pesticide. Examples named in the proposal include deactivating agents, agents to remove taste and odours, reactants and utility modifier adjuvants.
• Makes it a legal requirement for anyone given directions on an authorization (for depositing a deleterious substance to control AIS) to follow those directions. Not following them would be an offence under the Fisheries Act.
• Gives regulators the explicit power to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization they have issued.
• Updates the way two provincial ministers are referenced (Manitoba and Alberta) so the wording is less likely to become outdated.
• The changes are proposed (not yet law) and would come into force on the day the regulations are registered.

Who's affected#

• Regulators who issue authorizations: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the Parks Canada Agency, and provincial/territorial ministers or their delegates who already issue AIS authorizations.
• People and groups that apply for or carry out pesticide-based AIS control projects, such as municipal governments, non‑profit conservation groups, Indigenous communities and organizations, property owner associations, and professional pesticide applicators.
• Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) are involved because they regulate pesticides and their labels.
• The proposal says it does not create new application requirements; it mainly clarifies legal authority and enforcement.

Why it matters#

• Removes legal uncertainty: regulators have been allowing some companion substances (for example, a deactivating chemical used downstream) in practice. The change puts that practice on firmer legal ground so project proponents are less likely to face Fisheries Act questions for using those substances as directed on a pesticide label.
• Makes directions enforceable: regulators would be able to take enforcement action if an authorization holder does not follow the conditions attached to an authorization.
• Lets regulators react to new information: the power to amend, suspend or cancel authorizations means projects can be changed or stopped if unexpected harms or risks are discovered.
• Practical impact is expected to be small: the government’s analysis says costs and environmental effects are likely minor because regulators already mostly operate this way.
• Consultation and Indigenous concerns: DFO held consultations and received input from Indigenous groups and others. Some respondents asked for thorough review, meaningful engagement on specific projects, and access to risk information; DFO says it will continue project-level consultation and work with the PMRA on guidance.
• Possible penalties: breaching regulatory directions could lead to fines or other penalties under the Fisheries Act, including fines up to $100,000 for some summary convictions and up to $500,000 for some indictable offences (with possible imprisonment for repeat or serious cases).