Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

What We Heard Report: Potential amendments to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations pertaining to authorities for the deposit of deleterious substances

On this page

Executive summary

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to governing with openness, effectiveness and transparency, and is developing regulations and policies through engagement and early discussions with Canadians.

The department, led by the Aquatic Invasive Species National Core Program (AIS NCP), engaged with Indigenous Peoples, governmental partners, multi-interest holders and the public at large to share information and seek input on 3 potential amendments to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations pertaining to authorities for the deposit of deleterious substances. These potential amendments are needed to improve the efficiency and environmental protections of authorized control activities for aquatic invasive species (AIS) that use pesticides, while aligning requirements of both the Fisheries Act and the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA).

Potential amendments to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations (2015) (AIS Regulations) being proposed seek to:

  1. harmonize the class substances that the AIS Regulations can allow with Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)-approved pest control product (pesticide) label, such that detoxifying agents, for example, may be used in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts of the pesticide on the environment
  2. obtain the authority for a regulator to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization it has issued to reduce the administrative burden on persons to whom an authorization is issued, as well as regulators and avoid impacts on fish and fish habitat
  3. strengthen accountability by specifying that conditions of an authorization issued must be followed by persons to whom an authorization is issued when using authorized classes of deleterious substances, including pesticides, to control an AIS

Engagement activities took place from October 2023 to March 2024 and provided opportunities for the participation of Indigenous Peoples, government partners, multi-interest holders and the public at large. Multiple engagement methods were used to enable participants to engage in ways suitable for their needs and provide feedback. These methods included making engagement materials available online on DFO’s Public Consultations and the Consulting with Canadians webpages, virtual information sessions, and opportunities to submit written feedback, all in both official languages. Approximately 180 people participated in the engagement activities and a total of 18 written submissions from individuals or organisations from across Canada were submitted to the department.

Feedback received showed a general understanding and support for the potential amendments to the AIS Regulations. Feedback provided also included a number of recommendations and concerns brought forward to the department for consideration, which were shared with Health Canada’s PMRA, when relevant.

This feedback will be used to inform the regulatory process for the potential amendments, as well as policies and guidance in support of the implementation of the AIS Regulations, when applicable. Key feedback included the need for regulators to:

Introduction

Mandate and authorities

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of subsections 36(3) to (6) of the Fisheries Act for subject matters such as the control or elimination of any AIS or aquatic species that represent a pest to fisheries (“Designation Order” 2014). This responsibility requires DFO to regulate the use of chemical substances (including pesticides) when used for AIS control purposes which it does through the federal AIS Regulations. The AIS Regulations were established under the Fisheries Act and provide clear rules related to the use of pesticides to control AIS across Canada. DFO’s AIS NCP is responsible for administering the AIS Regulations and for leading federal efforts against AIS in Canada.

The AIS Regulations enable the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and prescribed federal, provincial or territorial ministers (section 18) to:

Jurisdictions with ministers prescribed under section 18 of the AIS Regulations include:

The AIS Regulations (paragraph 21(b)) specify that pesticides must be registered or otherwise authorized for use by Health Canada’s PMRA under the PCPA before their use against an AIS can be authorized under the AIS Regulations. Specific directions on how pesticides must be used are prescribed on their labels and are legally binding under the PCPA.

Anyone who wishes to use a registered pesticide to control an AIS must receive an authorization from DFO or from the prescribed provincial or territorial regulator under the AIS Regulations (subsection 19(3)). In relation to the Crown’s duty to consult, these authorizations from DFO are subject to consultations with Indigenous Peoples whose potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights may be affected by a specific project. If a project is approved, the authorization will include a number of conditions, in addition to those imposed under the PCPA, to ensure that the pesticide will be used as intended in an effective manner to manage impacts to the environment or human health.

Since the AIS Regulations came into force in 2015, DFO has issued a total of 59 authorizations under subsection 19(3) of the AIS Regulations. These authorizations were issued between 2019 and 2024 in 3 of its 7 administrative regions:

Potential amendments

DFO has committed to govern with openness, effectiveness and transparency, and is developing regulations and policies through engagement and early discussions with Indigenous Peoples and Canadians. The department, led by the AIS NCP, engaged with Indigenous Peoples (e.g., Indigenous organizations, communities, governments and individuals), government partners (i.e., federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions), multi-interest holders (e.g., resource management boards, municipal governments and associations, non-governmental organisations, trade associations, etc.) and the public at large to share information and seek input on 3 potential amendments to the AIS Regulations within the scope of this engagement. These potential amendments are needed to improve the efficiency and environmental protections of authorized control activities for AIS that use pesticides, while aligning requirements of both the Fisheries Act and the PCPA.

The first potential amendment proposes to harmonize the class of substances that the AIS Regulations can allow under section 21 with the labels of PMRA-approved pesticides, such that detoxifying agents, for example, may be used to ensure the effectiveness of treatments and mitigate potential adverse impacts of the pesticide on the environment. While the scope of section 21 would be expanded to include substances such as “deactivating agents, reactants, agents to remove taste and odours and utility modifier adjuvants” that may be referred to on the labels of pesticides, the use and deposit of these substances would only be possible if these 3 conditions are met:

  1. the use of the “deactivating agents, reactants, agents to remove taste and odours and utility modifier adjuvants” is referred to on the label of a registered pesticide
  2. the deposit of the registered pesticide and any “deactivating agents, reactants, agents to remove taste and odours and utility modifier adjuvants” referred to on the pesticide’s label have been authorized by a regulator under subsection 19(3) following a thorough review of the applicant’s proposal and consultations with Indigenous Peoples and other interested parties, when required
  3. the authorized deposit of the pesticide and any “deactivating agents, reactants, agents to remove taste and odours and utility modifier adjuvants” is done in accordance with the label of the pesticide

No utility modifier adjuvants are currently recommended for use with pesticides to control AIS and only 4 deactivating agents, agents to remove taste and odours or reactants are currently referred to on the label of pesticides used to control AIS and registered by Health Canada’s PMRA under the PCPA:

The second potential amendment proposes to obtain the authority for a regulator to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization it has issued to reduce the administrative burden on persons to whom an authorization is issued and regulators, or prevent harm to the public or aquatic ecosystems in case of non-compliance or unforeseen events. The process to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization would be transparent and prescribed through a policy integrating key elements from the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations.

The third potential amendment proposes to strengthen accountability by specifying that conditions of an authorization issued must be followed by persons to whom an authorization is issued when using authorized classes of deleterious substances, including pesticides, to control an AIS. DFO proposes to amend the regulations to make it clear that a failure to respect the conditions of an authorization issued under subsection 19(3) of the AIS Regulations is, in and of itself, an offence under the AIS Regulations.

For more information on these potential amendments to the AIS Regulations, please visit DFO’s Forward Regulatory Plan 2024-2026 and the consultation profile on DFO’s Public Consultations webpage.

Engagement overview

Target audiences

In the fiscal year 2023-2024 the AIS NCP engaged with Indigenous Peoples, government partners, multi-interest holders and the public to share information and seek early input on 3 potential changes to the AIS Regulations being considered. These potential amendments were anticipated to be of particular interest to:

While feedback from all Canadians was sought, target audiences for engagement included:

Engagement approach

DFO’s AIS NCP notified Indigenous Peoples, government partners, multi-interest holders and the public early and broadly of its intent to engage on potential amendments to the AIS Regulations. Notifications were done verbally through presentations given at existing federal, provincial and territorial working groups and committees, and via emails sent to individuals and organisations from a broad list of contacts nationally.

Multiple engagement methods were used to enable participants to engage and provide feedback in ways suitable for their needs. These methods, available in both official languages, included making engagement materials available online on DFO’s Public Consultations webpage, hosting virtual information sessions and providing an opportunity to submit written feedback.

The AIS NCP’s engagement activities undertook 3 distinct paths:

Engagement activities

Engagement with non-federal partners began in October 2023 with a launch presentation informing provincial and territorial jurisdictions of the planned engagement activities, the scope of the subject matter that would be discussed and their timelines. Email notifications conveying similar information were sent to Indigenous Peoples, government partners and multi-interest holders in November 2023.

The engagement material on potential amendments to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations pertaining to authorities for the deposit of deleterious substances were available on DFO’s Public Consultations webpage from January 5 to March 31 2024. This consultation profile was linked to the Consulting with Canadians website to increase public awareness of this opportunity for engagement.

The AIS NCP engaged directly with government partners that have a mandate for the management of AIS or for the regulation of deleterious substances, including pesticides, in Canada. This included representatives from the National Aquatic Invasive Species Committee (NAISC) which is composed of representatives from federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions and is under the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM).

A virtual national engagement session for government partners was held on January 17, 2024 in both official languages. The department provided information on the potential amendments being proposed, responded to questions to provide clarity and provided provincial and territorial representatives with the information necessary for individual jurisdictions to discuss the proposed changes internally. Provincial and territorial jurisdictions had a second opportunity to share feedback and to discuss the proposed changes through their NAISC representatives on February 14, 2024 during the Committee’s annual meeting.

Two virtual national information sessions were also organized to seek views from the Canadian public. The first session for Indigenous Peoples, multi-interest holders and the public at large was held on February 28, 2024. A second session reserved for Indigenous Peoples was held on March 6, 2024.

Written submissions from all interested parties were requested to be submitted before March 31, 2024. Short extensions were granted upon request.

Feedback analysis

Disclaimer

This report provides a summary of key messages received through written submissions provided during the engagement activities from January to March 2024. Indigenous Peoples that submitted feedback as a result of the engagement activities are referred to as “Indigenous participants” in the remainder of the report.

No personal information is disclosed in this report. All information collected stays anonymous outside of DFO’s AIS NCP.

Who we heard from

Approximately 180 participants from across Canada took part in engagement activities in support of the potential amendments to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations pertaining to authorities for the deposit of deleterious substances. This included:

A total of 18 written submissions from individuals or organisations from across Canada were submitted to DFO:

Feedback received

Feedback received through written submissions was compiled by the AIS NCP and subsequently analyzed to:

Feedback is summarized in the sections below:

Feedback assessed to be outside of the scope of engagement is discussed in the section Other feedback.

General feedback

Feedback received from Indigenous participants, governmental partners and multi-interest holders showed a general understanding and support for the potential amendments to the AIS Regulations.

Submissions from a few Indigenous participants or government partners did not include specific feedback. Specifically, two Indigenous participants either did not express any concerns about the potential amendments or indicated that they did not have any comments on the proposal based on the information provided by DFO during public engagement activities. A third Indigenous participant stated that they had limited capacity to engage on those amendments but would welcome an opportunity to provide feedback in the future. A fourth Indigenous participant communicated that a longer timeframe for engagement would have been needed to enable meaningful Indigenous feedback, and that Indigenous Peoples should be engaged at the same time as provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

Government partners and one multi-interest holder were supportive of the 3 proposed amendments as presented.

Feedback on the first potential amendment

Specific feedback provided on the first potential amendment seeking the ability to authorize the deposit of other substances referred to on the label of pesticides, focused on 2 themes:

  1. Enhanced efficiency, efficacy and regulatory oversight
  2. Review process including consultations and engagement
Enhanced efficiency, efficacy and regulatory oversight

Government partners from federal and provincial governments were supportive of the potential amendment which would enhance the efficacy of treatment and provide adaptability in the face of ever evolving AIS threats.

One multi-interest holder stated that the amendment would give more opportunities for the safe use of pesticides and successful management of AIS. Being able to authorize the deposit of other substances referred to on the pesticide’s label would increase the efficacy of treatments, avoid the need for follow-up treatments and potentially reduce overall pesticide use and impacts on non-target organisms. The multi-interest holder also suggested that key substances be listed in a schedule of the AIS Regulations as it may be informative for applicants and regulators.

Three Indigenous participants found the proposal for regulatory amendments to be generally justified but cited a lack of information limiting firm support, notably in terms of the consultation process used by regulators before issuing an authorization (see the section: Review process including consultations and engagement below) or potential adverse effects of these substances on the environment, particularly on culturally significant species and salmonids (see the section: Other feedback).

Review process including consultations and engagement

Multiple Indigenous participants and multi-interest holders stated that risks associated with projects proposing to use pesticides and other substances referred to on their labels should be thoroughly evaluated by regulators before an authorization is issued under subsection 19(3) of the AIS Regulations. Proper mitigation measures, oversight and monitoring mechanisms should also be implemented to minimize risks associated with the proposed deposit. Two Indigenous participants asked that regulators take into account interactions between pesticides and the other substances referred to on their labels to require smaller quantities of pesticides or the use of safer alternatives in the authorization.

Four Indigenous participants emphasized the need for meaningful consultations with Indigenous Peoples during the review of projects proposing to use pesticides and other substances referred to on their labels before an authorization is issued under subsection 19(3). Consultations with Indigenous Peoples and consideration of Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices would ensure that aquatic ecosystems, the health of Indigenous Peoples and their rights are protected.

One Indigenous participant also identified the need to develop a notification process to inform Indigenous Peoples of when authorized deposits are taking place, and the mitigation measures to be adopted specific to the other substances to protect the health of community members that use waters for recreation or drinking.

Next steps

Only projects proposing to use substances that are authorized under section 21 of the AIS Regulations, including pesticides that are registered or whose use is authorized under the PCPA for AIS, can be authorized under the AIS Regulations. Anyone who wishes to use a pesticide to control or eradicate an AIS must submit an application to DFO or the appropriate provincial or territorial regulator and receive an authorization. Project proposals submitted to DFO are reviewed in accordance with requirements of the AIS Regulations and the Fisheries Act. This review notably includes:

In relation to the Crown’s duty to consult, these authorizations from DFO are subject to consultations with Indigenous Peoples whose potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights may be affected by a specific project. If a project proposing to use pesticides to control an AIS is approved, the authorization will include a number of conditions, in addition to those imposed under the PCPA, to help ensure that the pesticide will be used as intended in an effective manner to manage impacts on the environment or human health. Pesticides must be used in accordance with directions of their labels. Additional requirements from provincial or territorial legislations may also apply (e.g., provincial permits or licensed applicator).

DFO agrees with the feedback received as part of these engagement activities and will continue to collaborate with Health Canada’s PMRA on best practices regarding AIS pesticides and other substances referred to on their labels. The department will continue to consult with Indigenous Peoples whose potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights may be affected by a specific project under review and will consider Indigenous knowledge as well as cultural practices or culturally significant species when evaluating project proposals. DFO will continue to ensure that suitable conditions of authorizations are imposed to mitigate environmental, human health or cultural impacts of projects authorized by the department. Finally, DFO will ensure that proponents notify interested parties (e.g., municipalities, land owners) of proposed projects, of when an authorization has been issued for their projects, and of the timing of planned deposits when and where applicable. DFO will also explore the options for including information on authorizations that have been issued under subsection 19(3) of the AIS Regulations on the Fisheries Act registry.

Feedback on the second potential amendment

Specific feedback provided by Indigenous participants, government partners, and multi-interest holders on the second potential amendment seeking authority to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization focused on 2 themes:

  1. Enhanced efficiency, efficacy and regulatory oversight
  2. Process for amending, suspending or cancelling authorisations, including consultations
Enhanced efficiency, efficacy and regulatory oversight

One government partner stated that the second potential amendment would allow regulators to respond promptly to changing conditions, streamline the regulatory process by reducing the administrative burden on both applicants and regulators and enhance environmental protection by having the ability to suspend or cancel authorizations in case of non-compliance or unforeseen environmental risk. Another government partner suggested that the wording in the AIS Regulations clarify exactly which prescribed person would have the authority to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization to avoid inter-jurisdictional issues.

Multiple Indigenous participants, government partners and multi interest holders were also supportive of the potential second amendment which would provide additional flexibility in managing approvals, but identified a number of conditions needing to be implemented as a result of the proposed modifications (see below).

Process for amending, suspending or cancelling authorisations, including consultations

Multiple participants stated that the process for amending, suspending or cancelling an authorization must be well defined and clearly communicated to proponents and the public alike.

One government partner mentioned that a clearly defined process would avoid potential inconsistencies in decision-making by misjudging impacts of the project, reduce uncertainties for stakeholders if frequent changes to the authorization were sought and reduce potential legal challenges to decisions made by regulators. One multi-interest holder further recommended to clearly describe the process by which regulators would notify project proponents of the changes being proposed or imposed, including clarifying if and when recourse is an option. One government partner suggested that the process should include the ability to pause an approval, which would be subject to time limitations (e.g., not exceeding 14 calendar days) allowing time for regulators to conduct an appropriate re-review of the project in question.

One multi-interest holder voiced concerns that the triggering of a new process and approval for minor changes to a project proposal could add to the already long process time needed to issue an authorization, which could impact the ability of a project applicant to implement control measures against AIS. The multi-interest holder recommended that the regulator allow a direct addendum application to the original authorization resulting in a shorter review process, and allow for unchanged sections of the authorization to remain valid. Issues with the review should also be communicated to proponents in a reasonable timeframe to avoid financial risks to the project’s proponent or increased environmental risks to surrounding ecosystems. Finally, the same multi-interest holder recommended that the cancellation of an authorization be preceded by a critical review by both the regulator and proponent, to ensure that the cancellation is done in just cause, for example in the event of an emergency.

Multiple Indigenous participants and multi-interest holders requested that the process to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization includes systematic engagement with the public and meaningful consultations with Indigenous Peoples that may be affected by proposed modifications to an authorization. One Indigenous participant expressed concerns about the level of detail that would be required to authorize an amendment or suspension of an authorization. The group stated an amendment to an authorization should be not be granted without a proper review if significant changes are being proposed, including matters such as delays beyond a short period of time (e.g., 1 month). Likewise, a suspension should include a thorough review of the project before the authorization is re-instated to account for potential changes within the area for which the work was proposed.

Multiple Indigenous participants also raised the need for a notification system to ensure that Indigenous communities whose traditional territory overlaps with the application area are consulted on potential changes to an authorization being considered. Finally, one Indigenous participant specified that a clear and accessible mechanism should be implemented for regulators to receive feedback or concerns from Indigenous communities to trigger the cancellation or suspension of an authorization or investigations into potential non-compliance.

Next steps

DFO is proposing to outline the process to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization through policy, including when to notify proponents requesting to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization of the outcome of their requests. The policy would also seek to establish the process to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization, when initiated by the relevant minister. The policy may include, to the extent appropriate, an overview of when modifications to an existing authorization may require consultation with Indigenous Peoples that may be affected by the proposed changes, or when proponent-led engagement with interested parties (e.g., municipalities, land owners) could be required. DFO will also consider avenues to limit the administrative burden or uncertainties on proponents when changes to an authorization are proposed.

Feedback on the third potential amendment

Specific feedback provided by Indigenous participants, government partners, and multi-interest holders on the third potential amendment seeking to strengthen accountability by specifying that conditions of an authorization issued must be followed by persons to whom an authorization is issued focused on 3 themes:

  1. Enhanced efficiency, efficacy and regulatory oversight
  2. Review process including consultations and engagement
  3. Monitoring and compliance
Enhanced efficiency, efficacy and regulatory oversight

Multiple participants are supportive of this potential amendment aiming to clarify language in the AIS Regulations, which will augment regulatory effectiveness, mitigate the risks of misinterpretation and ultimately help ensure that conditions of authorizations are followed by proponents.

One government partner and one multi-interest holder highlighted that it will close a regulatory gap and promote responsible conduct by ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, while holding project proponents more clearly accountable for their actions. One government partner noted however that stricter enforcement measures, including compliance monitoring, may increase administrative implications on both regulators and project proponents.

Review process including consultations and engagement

One government partner and one multi-interest holder noted that stringent enforcement of conditions which may be difficult for stakeholders to implement effectively could create challenges for project proponents and lead to unintentional non-compliance. The multi-interest holder noted the importance of accountability and transparency by regulators. It suggested that the regulator provide detailed communication materials (e.g., guidance document, feedback sessions) so that project applicants understand what it means to be compliant under subsection 19(3) of the AIS Regulations.

Monitoring and compliance

Two Indigenous participants voiced significant concerns regarding the thoroughness and effectiveness of environmental monitoring and enforcement of regulations. They suggested that regulators establish mechanisms for the direct participation of Indigenous communities in ecological monitoring and compliance monitoring of authorized projects. This would include clear avenues for those communities to report concerns to regulators surrounding non-compliance or adverse environmental effects so they can be promptly addressed.

Next steps

DFO will consider feedback received and will strive to increase clarity and transparency regarding authorizations issued under subsection 19(3) of the AIS Regulations, including by providing additional guidance to proponents to ensure compliance with conditions of authorizations. Compliance monitoring and enforcement of authorized projects fall under the authority of DFO’s Conservation and Protection directorate, which may be contacted via DFO’s regional offices if there are concerns or feedback regarding projects authorized by DFO.

Proposed fourth potential amendment

Government partners from 2 provincial governments suggested that DFO considers a fourth potential amendment related to adding or modifying the list of prescribed persons under section 18 of the AIS Regulations during January 2024 engagement activities with federal, provincial and territorial partners. No other provincial or territorial jurisdictions raised this suggestion.

Next steps

Adding or changing the specific federal, provincial or territorial ministers to the list of prescribed persons under section 18 of the AIS Regulations was initially outside the scope of these potential amendments. However DFO recognizes the importance of this authority to certain provincial or territorial governments and considers the suggestion to be directly aligned with the objectives of this proposal for potential amendments to the AIS Regulations. Therefore, DFO will consider amendments to section 18, if directly requested by provincial and territorial minister(s) seeking to be identified as a prescribed person.

Other feedback

Additional feedback provided by participants and assessed to be outside of the scope of the public engagement activities is summarized below.

Multiple Indigenous participants, multi-interest holders and government partners mentioned that they do not support the broad application of pesticides as a solution to AIS. They stated that the potential amendments should not contribute to increasing the number of authorizations issued under subsection 19(3) of the AIS Regulations, or the quantity of pesticides deposited in Canada. One multi-interest holder advanced that the use of pesticides to control AIS is cruel and dangerous and not an appropriate method for euthanasia, even if a species is determined to be invasive.

One Indigenous participant raised significant concerns with the lack of cohesion between jurisdictional authorities related to governments’ duty to consult with Indigenous communities where Aboriginal and/or Treaty rights may be impacted. The group mentioned that what constitutes an Indigenous community or an impact is not considered the same across all levels of government, and there is a need to clearly define the requirements in terms of Indigenous consultation.

Multiple Indigenous participants also provided specific recommendations to the department to support reconciliation and improve the management of AIS in Canada, including:

Finally, a significant portion of the feedback provided and summarized below falls under the mandate of Health Canada’s PMRA which is responsible for pesticide regulation in Canada. Questions pertaining to the management of pest control products in Canada can be submitted to Health Canada’s PMRA Pest Management Information Service.

Multiple Indigenous participants, multi-interest holders and government partners expressed concerns about the potential negative effects related to the use of other substances referred on the labels of pesticides, the lack of information on the toxicity of these substances on ecosystems or human health and insufficient information on their fate in the environment (e.g., accumulation within or migration outside a project area). They recommended that other substances referred on the labels of pesticides be equally as thoroughly regulated as the pesticide itself and that they be subject to comprehensive toxicity testing and/or ecological and human health risk assessment activities and that those findings be communicated to the public. They also recommended establishing clear and transparent guidelines for the application of other substances referred to on the label of pesticides.

Two government partners recommended that the proposed wording of the amended section 21 of the AIS Regulations be flexible enough to allow the use of the substances in both open water and in closed systems when a pesticide is used (e.g., irrigation, dam/water intakes, hydro infrastructure) or to allow the pesticide’s detoxifying step to be skipped if impacts are not anticipated downstream of a project area.

Next steps

DFO will consider comments received as a result of public engagement in the development of the regulatory proposal or the review of its policies and guidance documents. Feedback assessed to be outside of the scope of engagement may influence future DFO policy and program development or may be considered for future modifications to the AIS Regulations.

Feedback provided pertaining to the PCPA which falls under the mandate of Health Canada’s PMRA was shared with the agency for its consideration. DFO will continue to collaborate with Health Canada’s PMRA on issues related to the management of AIS through deposits of pesticides applicable to AIS.

Page details

Date modified: