Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations

Statutory authority

Fisheries Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

Aquatic invasive species (AISs) are aquatic organisms that, upon introduction to areas or waters where they do not originate naturally, could have harmful effects on fish or fish habitat in Canada or the use of fish by Canadians. AISs have the potential to thrive in the absence of predators and to radically alter host habitat, rendering it inhospitable for indigenous species. If established in ecosystems, AISs can significantly affect local fisheries; reduce biodiversity; cause reductions in, or extinction, of populations of indigenous fish; degrade water and habitats; alter infrastructure; introduce disease; and reduce recreational opportunities. The main pathways for the introduction or spread of invasive species include shipping, recreational and commercial boating, the use of live bait in fishing, the aquarium/water garden trade, live food fish, unauthorized introductions and transfers, and canals and water diversions.

Currently, there is a patchwork of inconsistent regulations and policies to address risks posed by AISs at various levels of government across Canada. There is no comprehensive, national AISs regulatory framework. Provinces and territories have put in place some regulations in their respective jurisdictions or are administering federal regulations to control specific invasive species or to manage the introduction of live fish more broadly. Generally, provincial regulatory schemes address matters under their jurisdiction, including property and civil rights, and therefore establish rules on the possession, sale, stocking, etc., of species in their jurisdiction. This has resulted in inconsistency across the country. In addition, there are some important gaps that can only be filled through federal regulations. Currently, there are no prohibitions against the interprovincial movement of AISs or the import of AISs into Canada. That means that even where there are rules in place prohibiting possession of a particular species in a province, there is no ability to deny the entry of that species into Canada. For example, there have been some successful enforcement actions under the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007, which have resulted in provincial enforcement officials intercepting shipments of live Asian Carps. However, this was only possible after the entry of these fish into Canada.

Another gap is the lack of a clear and comprehensive power to authorize the deposit of deleterious substances to control AISs. The federal Fisheries Act requires that these types of deposits be au-thorized through regulation. While there are some regulations, such as the Fish Toxicant Regulations, that can be used to address “pests” more generally, they are not ideal as they contain conditions that may not always be appropriate for AISs control activities (e.g. requirements to restock) and they do not apply across Canada.

There have been many new aquatic invaders in Canadian waters since the mid-1980s: currently, approximately 185 alien species are present in the Great Lakes. The risk continues to grow as other potentially harmful non-indigenous species have begun to encroach on Canada’s ecosystems. Asian Carps have been widely recognized as posing a significant looming threat to the Great Lakes. These fish have already caused profound damage in the United States where they have reduced native fish and mussel populations — some of which are endangered.

The ongoing expense of managing the spread of AISs demonstrates that the cost of prevention is far less than the cost of control and mitigation measures, which often require significant time and effort to generate tangible results. For example, Canada has worked bilaterally with the United States to manage the Sea Lamprey Control Program in the Great Lakes. This program has been successful and is essential to the protection of the valuable commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries of the Great Lakes with an estimated value in the billions of dollars. However, ongoing suppression of Sea lampreys requires a substantial effort costing $25 million per year (approximately $8 million of which is paid by Canada) and is indicative of the potential economic consequences associated with AISs.

The total projected costs arising from damages caused by AISs are difficult to estimate as they include direct and indirect costs and are reflected in market and non-market variables. Nevertheless, AISs have been demonstrated to have significant environmental impacts and economic costs for humans. An examination of three published studies that included over 100 species suggested that the average costs associated with each invasive species within North America ranged from $14 million to $39 million annually. Associated costs included the control and management of the invasive species, losses in biodiversity and intrinsic ecosystem values, and economic costs associated with commercial and industrial activities that are dependent on water and aquatic ecosystems (e.g. fishing, tourism, hydroelectricity, marine transportation).

To address the risks associated with AISs, the proposed Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations would provide federal and provincial governments with a range of tools required to prevent the introduction of an AIS to Canada, to respond to an invasion and to manage the spread of established AISs. The proposed Regulations would prohibit the import, possession, transport and release of significant risk species, in specific geographic areas and under specific conditions. Currently, the proposed list of species to which these prohibitions would apply is quite limited and represents a consolidation of species already listed under federal AIS regulations in Manitoba and Ontario, as well as Asian Carps and Zebra and Quagga mussels. In the future, other species can be added or removed through regulatory amendments when necessary. These prohibitions would help target species that pose a significant risk in a particular area as well as activities such as trade in invasive species, the intentional introduction of AISs, and the unintentional introduction of AISs as “hitchhikers” on equipment or vessels. Import controls are a fundamental feature of the proposed Regulations as they address an existing gap in aquatic invasive species legislation in Canada. Import prohibitions are needed to facilitate enforcement at a controlled point, i.e. the Canadian border, which would prevent the entry of high risk species into Canada instead of relying on possession prohibitions within specific provinces.

The proposed Regulations would also include a general prohibition against the unauthorized introduction of aquatic species where they are non-indigenous. This builds on existing federal and provincial regulations which manage the introduction and transfer of fish. While these tools have been used to address risks associated with AISs in the past, many were not designed with this objective and therefore may not always be appropriate or effective for AIS management. There is also a variation in these requirements across jurisdictions and some of the regulatory provisions may not cover non-fishing related activities in certain areas. Therefore, a nationally consistent prohibition against the introduction of non-indigenous species would provide a strong preventative regulatory tool that can be used to safeguard Canada’s aquatic environments from the threat of species that may be harmful.

At present, there is a limited ability to respond to invasions. Although prevention is the key to managing the threat of AISs, when an invasion does occur, early detection and response are paramount in preventing establishment and minimizing spread; therefore, comprehensive regulatory tools are necessary to both prevent introduction and respond when an invasion does occur.

Background

As a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the Government of Canada is committed to the prevention, control or eradication of invasive species that threaten ecosystems, habitat, and indigenous species.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (the Committee) produced a report in 2003 on aquatic invasive species in Canada. The report recommended two key actions to improve the Canadian regulatory framework concerning the management and control of aquatic invasive species. It recommended that (a) regulations applicable to aquatic invasive species be consolidated within a comprehensive set of federal regulations; and (b) regulations prohibiting live Asian Carps in Canada under the Fisheries Act be developed. In a subsequent 2013 report on the situation in the Great Lakes, the Committee recommended that the Government of Canada expand efforts to restrict the spread of aquatic invasive species into Canada, especially Asian Carps.

The Government of Canada and its provincial and territorial counterparts introduced An Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada (IAS Strategy) in 2004. This strategy is aimed at reducing the risk of invasive species to the environment, economy and society, and promoting environmental values such as biodiversity and sustainability.

Within this strategy, an action plan was developed in 2004 by the federal/provincial/territorial Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers: A Canadian Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species (Action Plan). The Action Plan calls for the prevention of unwanted introduction, early detection of potential invaders, rapid response to prevent the establishment of aquatic invasive species, and management to contain those species that have already become established.

Budget 2010 allocated $4 million per year to Fisheries and Oceans Canada to continue the implementation of the IAS Strategy as well as for the maintenance and enhancement of advances made in the previous five years in terms of AIS activities.

In order to achieve the objectives of the Action Plan, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is proposing regulations to provide a targeted, national suite of regulatory tools under the federal Fisheries Act to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species into Canadian waters, and control and manage their establishment and spread, if introduced.

Objectives

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the responsibility to protect fish and their habitat under the Fisheries Act. As part of A Canadian Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is proposing the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations (hereafter the proposed Regulations) under the Fisheries Act. The objectives of these proposed Regulations are

to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in Canadian waters;

to avoid costs associated with the establishment of invasive species; and

to support management activities to control the spread of aquatic invasive species once introduced into Canada, including efforts to eradicate aquatic invasive species where feasible, by providing a targeted, national regulatory tool that allows the authorization of these activities under the Fisheries Act.

The proposed Regulations would

provide regulatory tools to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species;

allow for the control or eradication of recently introduced or already established invaders; and

fill the gaps between the current regulatory regimes and harmonize the current Canadian regulatory framework.

Description

The proposed Regulations would provide a comprehensive set of provisions and authorities to manage the threat of aquatic invasive species through a flexible risk-tiered approach. The proposed Regulations would address species by classifying them into three categories:

Species listed in Part 1 of the Schedule. These 88 species would be subject to one or more of the following prohibitions: import, possession, transport and release in specific areas set out in the proposed Regulations and under specific conditions. At this time, 82 of these species are only subject to restrictions against possession, transport and release in Manitoba, in Ontario, or in both. Import restrictions would apply across Canada to the Asian Carp species, and Zebra and Quagga mussels.

Species listed in Part 2. These are species that may represent a risk in certain parts of Canada but for which there would be no prohibition against import, transport or possession. Upon the entry into force of the proposed Regulations, the unauthorized introduction of the 14 species listed initially in Part 2 would be prohibited and these species may be subject to control activities only where they are not indigenous and may cause harm.

Other non-listed aquatic species representing a risk of harm where they are non-indigenous.

The selection of the species proposed for inclusion in the Schedule of the proposed Regulations was informed by consulting scientific literature, fishery managers, stakeholders, and risk assessments completed by the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment (CEARA). Existing lists of species from the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 and the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 were used to determine the majority of species listed in the Regulations, but only in Manitoba and Ontario respectively. In the future, the appropriateness of expanding prohibitions against these species into other geographic regions would be considered. In addition to these species, the proposed Regulations include measures to address Asian Carps, and Zebra and Quagga mussels. These species are already highly regulated under provincial laws but there are some important gaps, such as regulating import, that would be filled by the proposed Regulations.

In the future, species could be added or removed from the proposed Regulations through regulatory amendment. This process would be informed by a biological and socio-economic risk assessment and include consultations and a cost-benefit analysis.

Prohibitions

(1) Species listed in Part 1 of the Schedule: species subject to prohibitions and control activities

Upon the entry into force of the Regulations, 88 aquatic invasive species listed in Part I of the Schedule would be subject to one or more prohibitions against import, possession, transport, and release. The prohibitions described below would apply to members of the species as well as to any genetic material capable of propagating them such as larvae, eggs, sperm, spat or other cells or tissues. Prohibitions applying to each listed species are outlined in the Schedule, clearly identifying the species, the prohibited activity (import, transport, possession or release), areas within which the prohibitions apply, and any conditions which would exempt the species from the prohibitions (for example if the individual member of the species were dead or eviscerated). The purpose of Part 1 of the Schedule is to tailor specific prohibitions to specific species and geographic areas over time. This would be done according to the biological and socio-economic impacts that a particular species may pose and the particular geographic area. Pathways of introduction would also be considered. For example, if a species is involved in international trade in the live food or pet industry, there may be a need to impose import restrictions. The costs and benefits associated with including a particular species in Part 1 of the Schedule would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The impact of the prohibitions on the activities of Canadians would need to be weighed against the benefits that would arise from preventing the introduction or spread of a particular aquatic invasive species. The costs and benefits associated with the species currently being proposed for inclusion in Part 1 of the Schedule are discussed in the “Rationale” section.

Finally, these species would also be subject to control and eradication measures in the geographical area where they are prohibited and in other areas where they are not indigenous and may cause harm. For example, the Snakehead, whose possession, transport and release is prohibited in Ontario and Manitoba, could be controlled anywhere in Canada where it is not indigenous and could cause harm. Another example would be the Rainbow smelt, which is prohibited in Manitoba, but indigenous in eastern Canada.

Summary of prohibited species Asian Carps The prohibition against importation, possession, transportation and release into Canada would apply to four species of Asian Carps (Grass, Bighead, Silver and Black carps) unless they are eviscerated. For some species, including Asian Carps, a requirement for evisceration is considered necessary to make sure that the fish is dead. The biology of these resistant species makes them capable of surviving out of water for a period of time and, in the past, Asian Carps transported on ice were found to be still alive days after being iced. The requirement for evisceration presents conclusive evidence of death and therefore ensures clarity for the purposes of enforcing compliance with the proposed Regulations. Zebra and Quagga mussels The proposed Regulations include a prohibition against the import of Zebra and Quagga mussels into Canada. This means that conveyances (excluding vessels longer than 24 m in length — see below for the rationale for this exemption) or equipment fouled with Zebra or Quagga mussels could be denied entry into Canada. There is an exemption provided for travel across transborder waters already infested with Zebra and Quagga mussels in Quebec and in Ontario, east of a particular coordinate cited in the proposed Regulations. This point represents the boundary between Lake Superior and the Pigeon River (it is a known boundary used to delineate fisheries management zones in the area). This exemption would be provided because these waters are already infested and therefore it would not be reasonable to require persons to ensure their vessels were free of mussels while moving back and forth across transborder waters. Importation overland of Zebra and Quagga mussels is prohibited across Canada. Prohibitions against possession, transportation and release apply in western provinces only (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba), where the mussels are not yet established. This would complement existing restrictions already in place across the western provinces with respect to possession and transport of these species. Individuals are therefore already required to undertake activities such as cleaning fouled vessels to stay in compliance with these existing provincial prohibitions. There are no restrictions against the possession or transportation of Zebra and Quagga mussels east of Manitoba. Zebra and Quagga mussels are freshwater species; their distribution to the east is limited by the salinity of the St. Lawrence Seaway east of Île d’Orléans (Orleans island) [where the ecosystem changes into a marine ecosystem]. They are not currently present in the fresh waters of the Atlantic provinces, and neither are they in Maine or New Hampshire. The inclusion of prohibitions against the possession and transportation of Zebra and Quagga mussels in the proposed Regulations has been initially limited to the western provinces as biological risk assessment work has been completed for this region of Canada. In the future, the prohibitions may be extended to other regions in Canada. The prohibition-exception approach proposed for Zebra and Quagga mussels is aimed to prevent their introduction in un-infested areas while allowing activities to continue in areas where they are already established. Furthermore, in areas where Zebra and Quagga mussels have become well established, with little potential for control or eradication, prohibiting activities related to those aquatic invasive species may not create a net benefit to Canadians as it may negatively affect social, economic and cultural activities in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. Species listed in the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 and the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 Out of the 88 species listed in Part 1 of the Schedule, 82 are already prohibited under the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 and the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 made under the federal Fisheries Act. They have been included in the proposed Regulations in order to consolidate federal AIS provisions. These 82 species are only subject to possession, transportation and release prohibitions in either Manitoba, Ontario or both. They are not subject to import restrictions or prohibitions against possession or transportation in other parts of Canada at this time. Overall, the status quo is maintained with respect to these 82 species as they are simply being transferred from regionally specific federal fisheries management regulations to the proposed Regulations for consolidation purposes; therefore, there is no new incremental impact. Based on future risk assessments, consultations, and a cost-benefit analysis, these prohibitions may be extended to other parts of Canada, if appropriate. This can be accomplished through regulatory amendment.

(2) Species listed in Part 2 of the Schedule: species subject to control only in areas where they are not indigenous

The proposed Regulations would also list species in Part 2 of the Schedule. Some of these species are indigenous to parts of Canada but have the potential to be invasive in other parts. These species may be subject to control and eradication activities only in areas where they are not indigenous and may cause harm if introduced or spreading. These species are not subject to prohibitions against import, transport, or possession.

For example, the Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and the Walleye (Sander vitreus) are two species that are indigenous in some parts of Canada but that are considered invasive elsewhere in the country. The indigenous distribution of the Yellow perch extends through most of central and eastern Canada, where its fishing is valued, but it represents a significant risk to native species in British Columbia. The similar situation with the Walleye is similar. It is indigenous in many areas in Canada and a valued species for sport fishing; nevertheless, it does not originate naturally in most of British Columbia and the eastern provinces. The proposed Regulations accommodate these situations by giving the regulators the authority to implement management actions to target the risks posed by these species in specific areas of Canada.

It would also be prohibited for any person, without a federal or provincial permit, licence or authorization, to introduce, or engage in any activity that may lead to the introduction of, these Part 2 species into a particular region or body of water frequented by fish where they are not indigenous.

This prohibition would not affect ongoing stocking activities, even in areas where a species is not indigenous. If there has been historic stocking of particular species in an area, or if risks posed by a particular species are low, these activities can continue as long as an authorization has been obtained.

The purpose of Part 2 of the Schedule is to inform the public that control activities may be pursued with respect to these species in areas where they are not indigenous. The proposed Regulations provide powers to address these species where they may be considered invasive, while recognizing that they may be native elsewhere. Part 2 of the Schedule also allows for the inclusion of species for which control measures may be desired but prohibitions relating to possession, transportation, or importation may not be appropriate as they may have a significant impact on stakeholder activities. Finally, Part 2 of the Schedule allows for species to be added to the proposed Regulations quickly as subject to control while work is underway to assess whether they should be subject to prohibitions and, if so, which ones, in what geographic region, and under what conditions.

(3) Aquatic species not listed but recognized as not indigenous in a particular region or body of water frequented by fish

The proposed Regulations would also incorporate some limited control provisions relating to non-indigenous species that are not listed. These provisions ensure that Canada’s fisheries and aquatic ecosystems can be better protected in circumstances where potentially harmful species have not been individually prescribed in the proposed Regulations.

Under the proposed Regulations, it would be prohibited for any person, without a federal or provincial permit, licence or authorization, to introduce, or engage in any activity that may lead to the introduction of, an aquatic species into a particular region or body of water frequented by fish where it is not indigenous. This provision is similar to provisions found currently in the Fishery (General) Regulations and other fisheries regulations that already prohibit unauthorized release and transfer of fish.

In order to provide greater certainty with regard to which species are considered non-indigenous in a given area, a fishery officer or fishery guardian may notify a person, directly or through a public notice, that an aquatic species is not indigenous in a particular region or body of water frequented by fish. This would aid individuals in complying with the proposed Regulations.

Exemptions from the prohibitions

Recognizing that the importation, transportation, possession and release into a body of water frequented by fish of members of species set out in Part 1 of the Schedule may be acceptable under certain circumstances, the proposed Regulations would include exemptions to the prohibitions.

(1) Fishery officers or fishery guardians

Prohibitions would not apply to fishery officers or fishery guardians carrying out their duties under the proposed Regulations and to any persons acting under their direction.

(2) Science, education or aquatic invasive species control

Exemptions are proposed for specific groups of people for the purposes of scientific research, education or aquatic invasive species control only when relevant permits listed in the Regulations have been obtained. This allows for continued scientific, educational, and aquatic invasive species control activities, while risks would be assessed and mitigation measures would be put in place to diminish the risk of unwanted introduction and spread of the species. Examples of activities granted by exemptions include research regarding aquatic invasive species that could take place in an accredited laboratory or post-secondary institution, or an educational display on aquatic invasive species within a publicly accessible aquarium.

(3) Provincial ministry or federal department

Exemptions from importation, transportation, possession and release prohibitions are also granted to employees of a provincial ministry or federal department with a mandate to manage or control AISs for scientific, educational or control purposes.

(4) Exemption for person under direction

If a direction issued under the proposed Regulations, by either a minister or a fishery officer, requires a person to be in possession of or to transport a member of a species listed in Part 1 of the Schedule, the person to whom the direction was issued is exempt from the prohibitions against possession and transport in sections 6 and 7 to the extent necessary to fulfill the requirements of the direction.

(5) Alberta sterile Grass carp program

The proposed Regulations would provide targeted exemptions in Alberta for the production of sterile (triploid) Grass carp by Lethbridge College for the purpose of vegetation control, when authorized under the Fisheries (Alberta) Act. This carp is sterile, produced under controlled conditions in a laboratory and sold in Alberta for release into water bodies for its huge capacity to eat large amounts of unwanted aquatic vegetation. Risks associated with the sterile Grass carp program would continue to be managed and mitigated through a variety of conditions put in place by the Government of Alberta, including a requirement that the sterile carp be released into a body of water on privately owned land that is isolated from other bodies of water. Since these introduced carps are sterile, they cannot invade their host water bodies. This exemption scheme was designed in consultation with provinces, territories and stakeholders. The exemption would mean that the sterile Grass carp program may continue to operate in Alberta under the same conditions as are currently in place, but would be limited to use for vegetation control. The exemption would also eliminate opportunities for expansion of this program into other regions.

(6) Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations and biofouling of a vessel over 24 m

To ensure no duplication of regulatory requirements would be imposed by the proposed Regulations, exemptions are proposed in respect of

ballast and sediment for persons referred to in the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations; and

biofouling for persons in charge of a vessel that is over 24 m in length.

The prohibitions to import, possess, transport and release would not apply to the above-mentioned persons. Also, in respect of these persons, a fishery officer would not have the authority to take measures, and the prescribed ministers and fishery officer would not have the authority to issue a direction.

These exemptions are provided because the management of ballast water and sediments is the responsibility of Transport Canada and is well managed under the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act. Since the introduction of these Regulations in 2006, no new invasive species attributed to ballast water release and transoceanic shipping in general have been recorded in the Great Lakes.

The biofouling on a vessel that is over 24 m in length is also managed by Transport Canada. Global coordination through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will continue to serve an important function. Through the IMO, Canada has supported the development of the 2011 Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships’ Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Aquatic Invasive Species, which are expected to greatly assist in reducing the risk of invasions from biofouling. Canada has also supported a five-year evaluation process launched by the IMO to determine the success of its voluntary guidelines.

However, vessels over 24 m in length would be subject to the proposed Regulations for matters not related to biofouling, and the Minister of Transport or a marine safety inspector would have to be consulted before taking a measure or issuing a direction. For example, a commercial vessel importing a prohibited species as cargo would be subject to the proposed Regulations.

Control and eradication

(1) Ministerial measures

The prescribed ministers — the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the provincial and territorial ministers listed in section 16 of the proposed Regulations — would have the authority to

license fishing for the species; and

authorize the deposit of deleterious substances, after they have taken into account the impact of the deposit and considered the use of alternative methods.

These measures would be applied in respect of a species set out in Part 1 or Part 2 of the Schedule or non-listed species in areas where they are not indigenous. The measures would be used to prevent the introduction or spread of the species, to control or eradicate the species, or to treat or control the members of the species.

Before authorizing the deposit, a prescribed minister must consider alternative measures and the possible impact of the deposit on fish, fish habitat or the use of fish.

The proposed Regulations would only allow the deposit of drugs and pest control products in compliance with the legislation of Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Health Canada’s Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch conducts pre-manufacture and pre-import assessments of the potential environmental risk of drugs under the New Substances Notification Regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency conducts environmental and human health risk assessments of pest control products in accordance with the Pest Control Products Act and its regulations. The proposed Regulations would complement the existing regulation of drugs and pest control products by regulating their deposit into waters for the purposes of controlling aquatic invasive species.

In order to avoid duplication of regulatory requirements, the above-mentioned ministerial powers, related to the control or eradication of species and to the treatment or destruction of fish, would not apply in respect of activities regulated under the recently proposed Aquaculture Activities Regulations.

The ministers listed in the Regulations have assumed a role in fisheries management and, therefore, have agreed to assume the role of controlling aquatic invasive species in line with their existing fisheries management objectives. More information on this is available in the “Implementation, enforcement and service standards” section of this statement.

(2) Ministerial directions

Prescribed ministers would have the authority to issue written directions, in respect of a species set out in Part 1 or Part 2 of the Schedule, requiring a person to treat or destroy members of the species or a carrier, or to treat a conveyance or structure where a member of the species is found, by depositing a deleterious substance for the purpose of preventing the introduction or spread of the species. It is important to note that directions can only be issued with respect to species listed in the Schedule. The majority of these species would be prohibited (i.e. Part 1) and are already subject to prohibitions and enforcement actions (such as inspection, seizure, etc.). The directions allow for the flexibility to apply preventative measures, instead of being limited to the enforcement of prohibitions after an introduction has occurred. This is a key aspect to addressing AISs, as corrective measures could prevent an introduction from occurring before it is too late.

Only prescribed ministers would have the ability to issue these directions. They would be required to take into account alternative measures and the possible impact of the deposit on fish, fish habitat and the use of fish before issuing a direction. In addition, directions would have a limited duration and would only be issued to certain individuals, i.e. the person in possession of the AIS or in possession of a carrier, conveyance or structure or who owns the place where the AIS is located. Further, issuing a direction would be possible only in cases where it does not compromise public safety or the safety of vessels and persons on board. Directions could not be issued in respect of ballast water and sediments or biofouling of a vessel that is over 24 m.

(3) Fishery officers and fishery guardians — Notifications and directions to stop introduction

A fishery officer or a fishery guardian would be able to notify a person or the public that an aquatic species, either listed or non-listed, is not indigenous in a particular region or body of water. In order to prevent the introduction of a non-indigenous species to a body of water, a fishery officer would be able to issue a direction prohibiting a person from engaging in an activity, or ordering a person to cease engaging in an activity, that may cause the introduction of a species.

(4) Fishery officers and fishery guardians — Measures and directions in respect of species set out in the Schedule

Under the proposed Regulations, a fishery officer, a fishery guardian or a person operating under their direction would be able to take measures and a fishery officer would be able to issue directions in cases where doing so is required, as follows:

For the purposes of identifying the species; and

In respect of a species set out in Part 1 or Part 2 of the Schedule, for the purpose of preventing the introduction or spread of, or to control or eradicate, the species, or to treat or destroy the members of the species.

It is important to note that because these directions can only be issued with respect to species listed in the Schedule, the majority of these species would be prohibited (i.e. listed in Part 1) and are already subject to prohibitions and enforcement actions (inspection, seizure, etc.). The directions allow for the flexibility to apply preventative measures, instead of being limited to the enforcement of prohibitions after an introduction has occurred. This is a key aspect of addressing AISs, as corrective measures could prevent an introduction from occurring before it is too late.

A fishery officer or a fishery guardian or a person acting under their direction could take the following measures:

Treat or destroy members of the species or a carrier or treat a conveyance or structure;

Establish a temporary barrier around the member of the species or a carrier, conveyance or structure; and

Post signs or markers around the member of the species or a carrier, conveyance or structure.

A fishery officer could issue a written direction requiring a person to

restrict any activity that may lead to the introduction or spread of the species;

restrict access to a place where there are members of the species;

undertake activity to prevent the introduction or spread of the species; or

undertake activities to treat or destroy members of the species or a carrier or treat a carrier, conveyance or structure.

Further, taking these measures or issuing these directions would be possible only in cases where

the measure does not compromise public safety;

the measure does not compromise the safety of vessels and persons on board;

the Minister of Transport or a marine safety inspector is consulted in cases of vessels over 24 m in length; and

the measure does not involve the deposit of deleterious substances unless the measure is authorized by a prescribed minister.

(5) Content of directions

Directions issued either by a fishery officer or by a prescribed minister must contain the information set out in the proposed Regulations. This includes, among other things, the description of the species, the reasons for the direction and the requirements. These directions have to establish the time period in respect of which they are applicable, up to a maximum of 15 days with an extension of up to a maximum of 90 days.

(6) Requirements for person to whom a direction is addressed

Every person to whom a direction is issued under these Regulations

must follow the requirements specified in the direction; and

is prohibited from engaging in any activity that is contrary to the requirements specified in the direction.

Paramountcy clause

In the event of an inconsistency between these proposed Regulations and any other regulations made under the Fisheries Act, these proposed Regulations would prevail.

Consequential amendments

As these proposed Regulations aim to bridge existing gaps, remove duplication and streamline the regulatory framework to manage AISs in Canada, some consequential amendments were required.

The Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 and the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 made under the federal Fisheries Act would be amended to repeal their list of invasive species (these species are transferred to Part 1 of the Schedule of the proposed Regulations).

The Fishery (General) Regulations would also be amended to allow for the issuance of aquatic invasive species control licences. This would allow fishing to be used as a means of AIS control.

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply as the proposed Regulations would not impose any new administrative burden on regulated communities. No new permits would be required under the proposed Regulations. The proposed Regulations only reference existing federal and provincial permits, authorizations, and legislative and regulatory schemes that individuals must comply with in order to qualify for exemptions, sometimes in addition to other conditions listed in the proposed Regulations. Such conditions would not include any new permits, reporting or record-keeping requirements, or other processes that could be considered an administrative burden. These existing requirements have to be satisfied at present regardless of the proposed AIS Regulations.

Small business lens

The small business lens does not apply to the proposed Regulations, as the costs to small business are not significant. Small business would not be disproportionately affected by the proposed Regulations. In most cases, the proposed prohibitions on the species initially included in the proposed Regulations already exist in other federal and/or provincial regulations, such that no new regulatory costs are identified (see the “Rationale” section).

Consultation

Fisheries and Oceans Canada held a series of consultations on a regulatory proposal for the control and management of aquatic invasive species. Various engagement tools were used beginning in November 2012 to capture the views of Canadians:

Online materials posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada Web site provide information on aquatic invasive species as well as a description of the regulatory intent;

Ten face-to-face public meetings held across Canada;

An online survey was open to all Canadians;

Interested persons were invited to submit their written comments; and

Presentations made at workshops, meetings and conferences.

Over 240 people have either personally received material or participated in the face-to-face meetings, and 571 people responded to the online survey. The participants and respondents came from various groups and entities including representatives of federal, provincial and territorial governments, Aboriginal groups, municipalities, shipping industry, commercial and recreational fishers, recreational boaters, aquarium trade, aquaculture, conservation groups, and research institutions.

Feedback was generally positive and indicated support for the regulatory initiative. Most stakeholders requested that additional measures be put in place to protect against AISs, including higher fines and tougher penalties, pressure-washing stations, and more authority for enforcement officials. There was a call for alignment between federal and provincial regulatory frameworks and coordination between jurisdictions, including internationally and interprovincially. In addition, many stakeholders felt that there were gaps in the current regulatory framework that needed to be addressed, such as the need to reduce the risk of AISs spreading through vectors such as cruise ships, feed/bait, fish processing and the aquarium trade. There was particular mention of boating activity as a vector for the introduction and spread of invasive species, and many stakeholders want to see this vector addressed effectively. The proposed Regulations do not include provisions relating to specific activities, but do include prohibitions against import, possession, transportation and release. Individuals would need to comply with these prohibitions regardless of the activity in which they are involved.

There was some concern expressed that a lengthy process to evaluate and approve AIS control activities may impede the response to invasions. To address this issue, the proposed Regulations allow for enforcement officials to issue directions to prevent the introduction and spread of listed species and the unauthorized introduction of any non-indigenous species. With respect to chemical control activities, the proposed Regulations link to existing processes for assessing, registering and approving drugs and pesticides so that action can be taken using products that have already been deemed acceptable for use under specific conditions.

Stakeholders, specifically in the Atlantic and Pacific regions, expressed concern that the proposed Regulations would not include many marine species initially. Generally, there was a desire to see more species listed in the proposed Regulations. Initially, the species listed in the proposed Regulations are those already regulated federally (though administered provincially), i.e. in the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 and the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987. Asian Carps have also been included in the initial list of species due to their significant threat and to address the current lack of import regulation for these species. The Government of Canada invested $15.3 million over five years in 2012 for the Asian Carp Initiative, and the inclusion of Asian Carps in the initial list of species in the proposed AIS Regulations is part of the effort to prevent these species from entering the Great Lakes. Zebra and Quagga mussels have also been added to the initial list, since these species were identified as high risk for western provinces and to address current gaps in import restrictions. As these species are already regulated in western provinces, there was minimal additional assessment necessary to add them to the proposed federal AIS Regulations. Species in Part 2 of the Schedule represent species that have been assessed as moderate to high risk in some parts of Canada. The inclusion of species such as Green crab and Tunicates responds to concerns noted during consultations about the current lack of measures to control these species.

The initial list of species by no means represents all potential AIS threats in Canada. However, the proposed Regulations would provide the initial framework that can be populated over time. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the provinces and territories would be identifying new species for inclusion in the proposed Regulations. This would be done according to an assessment of risk of the species arriving, surviving, and establishing itself, and its potential impact. As new species are identified for potential inclusion in the proposed Regulations, consultation and cost-benefit analyses would be pursued prior to their listing.

During public sessions on the regulatory intent, there were questions raised about definitions of terms such as “harm” and “aquatic invasive species.” There were also discussions about how best to regulate AISs. These views were considered in the development of the proposed Regulations. Definitions have been included where appropriate. Some stakeholders asserted that the regulatory framework should take a “reverse onus” approach and include blanket prohibitions against all live aquatic species and then identify a list of acceptable species. This approach could have resulted in restrictions on activities and species when there is no significant risk posed by a given species; therefore, it was not taken. In addition, some stakeholders felt that specific activities and pathways should be directly referenced in the proposed Regulations. This approach was not taken as it would be difficult to enumerate all potential activities that could lead to the introduction or spread of AISs. Instead, the broader categories of prohibitions against import, possession, transport, and release were used. This approach results in the need to comply with these prohibitions regardless of the activity being undertaken.

With respect to the implementation of the proposed Regulations, stakeholders suggested the need for education and public awareness campaigns to help promote compliance. There was also some concern expressed regarding the capacity to implement and enforce the proposed Regulations at the provincial and federal levels and the need for more infrastructures to support implementation. DFO and the provinces and territories would be working together to facilitate the implementation of the proposed Regulations. Focus would be on high risk species, pathways of introduction and geographic areas. Many jurisdictions already have very effective education and outreach programs in place to increase public awareness about this issue, and these efforts would continue.

Some concern was expressed by the agricultural sector in Alberta as well as Lethbridge College regarding the proposal to prohibit Asian Carps. Conversely, there was a strong desire expressed by other stakeholders and provincial governments to fully prohibit all Asian Carps in Canada and require their evisceration in order to facilitate enforcement action and minimize any risk of introduction of these species. The Government of Canada considers Asian Carps to be a significant risk to the Great Lakes and is investing $15.3 million over five years on prevention, early warning, response, and management activities. Considering the risk posed by these species and stakeholder views, the approach taken has been to prohibit import, transport, possession and release of Asian Carps in Canada unless they are dead and eviscerated. However, due to the safeguards put in place in the Lethbridge College program, where all Grass carp are produced as triploid (sterile) and individually tested, an exemption has been included for the use of these fish if it is licensed under the Fisheries (Alberta) Act. This exemption is limited to the use of these fish for vegetation control purposes only. The proposed Regulations therefore do prevent Lethbridge College from selling sterile Grass carp in the live food market and from expanding the sale of these fish into other provinces.

Generally, stakeholders, including recreational and commercial fishers, expressed a desire to see action to address the issue of the introduction and spread of AISs by boating activities. However, persons involved in boating and shipping activities asked questions regarding how the proposed Regulations would impact these activities. As each species is considered for addition to the Regulations, the pathway of introduction as well as the potential impact of the regulatory provisions, such as prohibitions against transport, would be the subject of evaluation and consultation. There may be instances in highly infested areas where it may not be feasible to include prohibitions against certain species. This is reflected in the exemption in the proposed Regulations regarding the import of Zebra and Quagga mussels in transborder waters in Ontario and Quebec. The proposed Regulations also provide for exemptions for vessels in compliance with existing ballast water regulations and for biofouling of large vessels (over 24 m). The latter exemption would facilitate continued commercial shipping activities and recognizes the implementation of voluntary guidelines to address risks associated with biofouling. For activities involving smaller vessels, the current prohibitions are likely to result in minimal impact (see the “Rationale” section).

Some individuals involved in fishing activities raised the issue that a species may be considered invasive in one region while it is indigenous somewhere else. This reality has led to the more flexible regulatory proposal that is adaptable to local situations. The Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) is an example of fish that is indigenous to the St. Lawrence River watershed, where fishing for the species is highly valued, but it is considered invasive in other parts of Canada, such as British Columbia. The proposed Regulations do not include prohibitions for these species, but do prohibit the unauthorized introduction of all species where they are not indigenous. In addition, the proposed Regulations would provide the opportunity for enforcement officials to take measures and issue directions to control these species, but only where they are deemed non-indigenous and may result in harm to fish, fish habitat or the use of fish.

DFO also conducted an online survey to gauge interest and views on AISs and the regulatory proposal. The survey results showed that

The majority of respondents identified themselves as belonging to environmental groups or the aquaculture sector, or were concerned citizens. The latter group comprised a large number of the respondents.

The main geographic areas representing the respondent’s residence were the Atlantic provinces (Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular) and Ontario.

All of the respondents indicated that they were aware of the threats posed by AISs. More than half indicated that they thought AISs have a significant impact on their activities (e.g. recreational fishing and boating, wildlife consideration).

Respondents noted that Green crab, Tunicates, Rainbow trout, Zebra and Quagga mussels and Asian Carps were the species that posed the greatest threat to their activities.

The majority of respondents are already undertaking actions to stop the spread of AISs (i.e. scraping/washing their boats/equipment, not dumping live bait, and emptying live wells prior to transporting their boats).

The establishment of regulations, public education, information to help identify AISs, and boat washing stations were measures that could be used to help people take action to avoid the introduction and spread of AISs.

The majority of respondents are supportive of regulations respecting AISs, even though there may be some implications for their activities.

Multijurisdictional committee for the development of the proposed Regulations

In addition to holding external consultations with various stakeholders, Fisheries and Oceans Canada worked collaboratively with provincial and territorial jurisdictions through the National Aquatic Invasive Species Committee (NAISC), a working-level task group under the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, to develop the proposed Regulations. Members of the committee were involved throughout the development of the proposed Regulations and would remain involved in their implementation.

Participation of federal departments

Other governmental departments were consulted since they have a role in the application of these proposed Regulations:

the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) provided its expertise in relation to importation and would be the entity enforcing the prohibition on import at the Canadian border;

Transport Canada provided its expertise with regard to biofouling and ballast water management; and

the Pest Management Regulatory Agency provided some expertise regarding the registration of pest control products.

Rationale

At present, Canada’s regulatory framework to address aquatic invasive species consists of a patchwork of regulations, under federal or provincial legislation, which include prohibitions in respect of the possession, transport, culture or sale of particular species. There is little consistency across this patchwork of legislation with regard to prohibited species, regulatory language or requirements. The proposed Regulations would provide national consistency across the different regimes.

Furthermore, the current aquatic invasive species regulatory framework is limited by significant gaps in management of the introduction and the spread of aquatic invasive species. This includes the lack of import prohibitions that can be enforced at the Canadian border. In addition, the Fisheries Act requires that regulations made under the Act authorize the deposit of deleterious substances into Canadian fisheries waters; the proposed Regulations would establish a framework for these substances to be authorized for AIS control purposes.

The status quo would not achieve the objectives as it does not allow for critical invasion management activities to take place and would not prohibit the introduction of non-indigenous species. No feasible non-regulatory alternatives were identified that would provide the same degree of protection against aquatic invasive species.

Although public awareness campaigns and education are important tools to deal with the threat posed by AISs, they are not always sufficient to change behaviour and they are not enforceable measures. For example, although measures such as the “Clean, Drain and Dry” educational campaigns are effective at raising public awareness about the issue of spreading AISs through recreational boating activities, they are not always enough to prevent invasions. The arrival of Zebra mussels in Lake Winnipeg as well as observations by provincial officials of boats infested with Zebra mussels and moving across the border into jurisdictions such as British Columbia and Alberta have raised new concerns and demonstrate the need for regulatory tools in addition to educational material. Currently, there is no tool that allows such boats to be stopped, inspected, and decontaminated before they are released into Canada. In light of the increasing number of AISs, clear prohibitions and enforcement tools, including restrictions at borders, are needed.

The overall net benefits of the proposed Regulations are thought to be substantial. Harmonizing existing regulations and regulatory tools would allow for more effective and efficient prevention, management and control of AISs in Canada. In addition, the prohibition on introducing non-indigenous species in Canadian waters would help prevent or reduce the potential for AISs to establish themselves and prevent significant environmental and/or economic impacts such as costs associated with the control and management of invasive species, losses in biodiversity and intrinsic ecosystem values, and economic costs associated with commercial and industrial activities that are dependent on water and aquatic ecosystems (e.g. fishing, tourism, hydroelectricity, marine transportation).

Challenges exist in transferring costs from a known establishment of an invasive species to a potential or new establishment (of the same or a different species), because of the complex interrelationships between different species, ecosystems and dependent communities and economies. Nonetheless, examined studies suggest that the benefits of avoiding the costs associated with the introduction of a non-indigenous species can be upwards of millions of dollars per species. The benefits and costs of the proposed Regulations were assessed separately for (a) each species listed in the Schedules and (b) other regulatory provisions. Species were assessed in “batches” according to the rationale for the listings; however, net benefits should be considered as applying on a speciesby-species basis.

Ministerial authorities and fishery officer powers would be applied on a case-by-case basis; incremental benefits and costs cannot be evaluated absent specific cases. It is expected that application activities would have minimal impacts as a result of the limitations on the use of directions, the fact that they relate primarily to species already prohibited and for which enforcement actions could be taken, and the requirement to take into account impact and alternative measures before issuing a direction.

Species listed in Schedule 1

(1) Prohibitions against species currently in the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 and the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007

Listing the identified species as AISs in the proposed Regulations is not expected to result in any incremental benefits or costs since these species are already prohibited in the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 and the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987. These are federal regulations made under the Fisheries Act but that apply in Ontario and Manitoba, respectively. These species would be removed from the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 and the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 but included in the proposed AIS Regulations in order to consolidate the federal regulation of aquatic invasive species into overarching, national AIS Regulations.

The 82 species listed in the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 and the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 are also subject to the general prohibition in the proposed Regulations against unauthorized introduction in areas where they are not indigenous. However, these restrictions already exist through prohibitions against release without a permit in the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 and through the extensive list of prohibited species in Manitoba. Therefore, there would be little incremental impact or cost associated with this prohibition.

(2) Prohibitions against Asian Carp species

Asian Carps are currently not present in Canada; however, the likelihood of their arrival into Canada from the Chicago Area Waterway System is high. Once established in Lake Michigan, Asian Carps could reach the connected Great Lakes basin and Canadian waters in fewer than five years. If established in Canadian waters, Asian Carps may cause significant economic damage to commercial fisheries, aquaculture and recreational boating and fishing, as well as environmental damage to ecosystems and biodiversity.

The listing of Asian Carps as invasive in Schedule 1 of the Regulations would have net benefits for Canadians. Incremental costs are expected to be low, with costs mainly associated with limited trade impacts as a result of prohibitions on live carp imports. The prohibition would not impact any trade or activity related to fresh or frozen Asian Carps. Currently, the five-year average dollar value of all live carp (not only Asian Carp species) trade in Canada is $1.31 million. Only five provinces have imported live carp in the last five years: Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. Of these provinces, only Alberta does not currently have prohibitions relating to the sale or possession of Asian Carps. Therefore, the new restrictions on Asian Carps in the Regulations would only impact Alberta. The impacts would be minimal as, together, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario account for 96% of the total Canadian import value of live carp (all species). Therefore, the total incremental cost of import restrictions on live Asian Carps in Canada is estimated to be very low.

The requirement for evisceration of Asian Carps in the proposed Regulations is not expected to materially increase costs for Canadians. Most dead and non-eviscerated Asian Carps are imported from the United States in aerated holding tanks that are drained at the border and then shipped to fresh food markets where the fish are eviscerated before being sold to the consumer. This means that evisceration costs are already borne by businesses at the point of sale. However, as a potential compliance consequence of the proposed Regulations, the evisceration and associated costs may have to be incurred at the point of initial shipment (U.S. aquaculture sites). The shift in costs may result in higher import prices; however, Ontario, which, by itself, accounts for 95% of the imports, already prohibits the possession and trade of live Asian Carps. Thus, it can justifiably be assumed that there would not be any impact on the import price of live Asian Carps in Ontario. For the remaining 5% of the imports, there may be some increase in import prices. However, the impact is expected to be negligible and would not increase costs for Canadian consumers.

The prohibition against the import of Asian Carps would be enforceable at the Canadian border. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) would be able to deny entry into Canada of these species as part of the existing customs declaration process. DFO and the provinces are already working with the CBSA to obtain information about imports of aquatic species into Canada. Once the import prohibitions are in place, DFO and the provinces would support the CBSA enforcement of prohibitions at the border through activities such as identification of species or providing directions for cleaning.

The listing of Asian Carps in the proposed Regulations would help prevent their establishment in Canada, thus preventing the potentially significant costs associated with the control and management of these species if they arrived and were established in Canada, as well as the negative environmental and economic impacts.

(3) Prohibitions against Zebra and Quagga mussels

Once Zebra and Quagga mussels are established, they can clog water intake and delivery pipes, infest hydropower infrastructure, adhere to boats and pilings, produce toxins that kill fish and birds and contaminate drinking water, compete for food with native species and deplete food sources for fish. In terms of ecological and economic impacts, Zebra and Quagga mussels are thought to be two of the most destructive aquatic species to have invaded North American fresh waters.

Listing Zebra and Quagga mussels as invasive in Part 1 of the Schedule in the proposed Regulations would have net benefits for Canadians. It would help prevent their establishment in western Canada, thus preventing the potentially significant costs associated with the control and management of these species as well as potential negative economic, environmental and social impacts. The economic costs associated with Zebra and Quagga mussel invasions are estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

Incremental costs for stakeholders as a result of prohibitions relating to Zebra and Quagga mussels are expected to be minimal because the possession of these species is currently prohibited for the most part under existing regulations (the Controlled Alien Species Regulation in British Columbia, the General Fisheries (Alberta) Regulation in Alberta, The Fisheries Regulations in Saskatchewan and the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 in Manitoba). Therefore, the proposed Regulations would only serve to complement these existing provincial schemes and provide consistency across jurisdictions in the language used to prohibit the possession, transport and release of these species.

The new incremental change would relate to the addition of a prohibition against the import of Zebra and Quagga mussels into Canada (except in transborder waters in Ontario and Quebec). In order to comply with the proposed Regulations, individuals would be required to inspect their boats or equipment, and wash and drain them if necessary before transporting them into Canada, or west of the Ontario–Manitoba border. These compliance requirements are not expected to increase costs to businesses or the public in western Canada since the same compliance activities must be undertaken to meet existing provincial requirements in western provinces. Only the timing and jurisdiction of enforcement activities are expected to change: the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) could deny entry into Canada of prohibited species at the border, rather than possession, transport and sale prohibitions being enforced within a specific province. This would facilitate enforcement as the border would provide a specific point at which compliance could be monitored. It would also increase predictability for the public as the import prohibition would be applied nationally, across Canada, as opposed to depending on varying provincial regulatory schemes.

East of Manitoba, there may be some additional costs incurred as a result of the import prohibition on Zebra and Quagga mussels, although these are expected to be minimal. As Zebra and Quagga mussels are not in commerce, these costs would be limited to those borne by individuals having to ensure trailered recreational boats or equipment are not fouled with mussels crossing the Canadian border in eastern Canada. However, there are some current regulations prohibiting the possession of live fish (e.g. Nova Scotia’s Live Fish Possession Regulations) and the unauthorized release of live fish generally [e.g. section 55 of the Fishery (General) Regulations] that already encourage people to clean their fouled vessels and equipment to stay in compliance with these rules. In the United States, Zebra mussels are listed as injurious wildlife under the federal Lacey Act, which makes it illegal to import, export, or transport these species between states without a permit. This means that individuals crossing the Canadian border would already have had to clean, drain, and dry their vessels or equipment if their journey involved travel over state lines while in the United States.

In addition, many recreational boat users clean, drain and dry their vessels as part of good maintenance and also as a result of extensive educational campaigns relating to this activity as a best practice to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species. Therefore, despite the lack of regulations specifically prohibiting the possession or transport of Zebra and Quagga mussels east of Manitoba, in Ontario, Quebec, and all Atlantic provinces, “clean, drain, dry” information is disseminated to the public by either the federal or provincial government to encourage these activities. As these vessels are out of the water at the time of overland transport, cleaning can be accomplished relatively simply by rinsing, scrubbing or pressure-washing a watercraft, trailer, or gear. Drying the watercraft and gear completely between trips, allowing the wet areas of the boat to air dry, leaving compartments open, and sponging out standing water can also prevent the transmission of AISs. Therefore, although there may be some costs associated with cleaning trailered vessels for individuals crossing the Canadian border in eastern Canada, these are not likely to be considered significant. Conversely, the import prohibition is expected to benefit Canadians, as it would mean that these species cannot enter the country, thereby reducing the risk of introduction and spread in areas where Zebra and Quagga mussels have not yet been established. In addition, the import prohibition facilitates enforcement as it provides a clear physical point where officials can perform inspections on boats and equipment and enforce the prohibition.

(4) Other regulatory provisions

The proposed Regulations also include powers for fishery officers and ministers to issue directions to prevent the introduction and spread of AISs. Given that these authorities would be applied on a case-by-case basis, incremental benefits and costs cannot be evaluated absent specific cases. There are also limitations on the powers to issue directions. Directions can only be issued with respect to species listed in the Schedule. The majority of these species are prohibited (i.e. listed in Part 1) and are therefore already subject to prohibitions and enforcement actions (inspection, seizure, etc.). The directions allow preventative measures to be taken, instead of relying on enforcement of prohibitions after an introduction has occurred. This is a key aspect of addressing AISs, as corrective measures could prevent an introduction from occurring before it is too late. In addition, directions have a limited duration and can only be issued to certain individuals, i.e. the person in possession of the AIS, a carrier, a conveyance or a structure, or the person who owns the place where the AIS is located. Finally, the impact and alternatives available must be considered when a direction is issued. The intent is that the least onerous alternative be pursued in order to prevent the introduction or spread of an AIS. The issuance of directions must also be undertaken in a manner that is reasonable and consistent with the principle of natural justice. In other words, the decision must be based upon relevant considerations, avoid arbitrariness and be made in good faith. The powers to issue directions are similar in nature to the activities fisheries officers can undertake when enforcing compliance with the Fisheries Act and its regulations, i.e. inspections, seizures, corrective measures.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

Once the Regulations are brought into force, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) would work with federal, provincial and territorial partners to administer and enforce the Regulations.

Historically, the provincial and territorial governments have played a key role in the administration and enforcement of the federal Fisheries Act. Soon after the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government started to conclude agreements with the other jurisdictions, providing them with the authority to manage the fisheries in their province. All of the inland provinces, from Alberta to Quebec, have been delegated fisheries management responsibilities. The coastal provinces are responsible for aspects of fisheries management mainly dealing with freshwater species.

DFO would implement the proposed Regulations where it has retained day-to-day management of fisheries. In 2012, the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers agreed that jurisdictions would take on the administration and enforcement of the proposed Regulations where they already have fisheries management responsibilities. To coordinate this multijurisdictional approach, DFO would continue to work with the National Aquatic Invasive Species Committee to oversee the implementation, administration and enforcement of the proposed Regulations.

The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the provincial ministers prescribed in the proposed Regulations would be provided with the ability to license fishing for aquatic invasive species, as well as authorize or direct the use of deleterious substances to control or eradicate aquatic invasive species.

DFO’s fishery officers and cross-designated enforcement officers (such as provincial conservation officers) would have the authority established under the Fisheries Act to enforce the Regulations and exercise the direction powers noted in the proposed Regulations.

The prohibition on import would be enforced by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). DFO would work with the CBSA to develop a Customs Notice and a D memorandum, which are used to inform individuals involved in importation activities of the new prohibitions. The departments would also work to develop an operational bulletin to distribute to border services officers, and, if appropriate or necessary, procedures for officers may be incorporated into standard operating procedures. These activities would be completed to coincide with the coming into force of the proposed Regulations.

Contacts

Tracy Kerluke

Manager

Aquatic Invasive Species

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

200 Kent Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0E6

Email: AISReg-EAEReg@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Peter Ferguson

Manager

Regulatory Affairs

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

200 Kent Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0E6

Email: AISReg-EAEReg@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsections 34(2), 36(5) and 43(1) of the Fisheries Act , proposes to make the annexed Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Peter Ferguson, Manager, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6 (tel.: 613-990-9325; fax: 613-993-5204; email: aisreg-eaereg@dfo-mpo.gc.ca).

Ottawa, November 27, 2014

JURICA ČAPKUN

Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(This table is not part of the Regulations.)

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES REGULATIONS

DEFINITIONS

1. Definitions

GENERAL

2. List of aquatic invasive species

3. Designation of species

4. Inconsistency with other regulations

PROHIBITIONS

5. Prohibition against importation

6. Prohibition against possession

7. Prohibition against transportation

8. Prohibition against release

9. Prohibition — species that are not indigenous

EXEMPTIONS

10. Aquaculture Activities Regulations

11. Exemption for certain persons

12. Exemption for authorized purposes

13. Exemption for Lethbridge College

14. Exemption for holder of cultured fish licence

15. Exemption for some persons

PRESCRIBED PERSONS

16. Prescribed persons

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

CONTROL AND ERADICATION

17. Definition of “Minister”

18. Authorized deleterious substances

MEASURES AND DIRECTIONS

19. Notification of species that are not indigenous

20. Definitions

21. Requirements

22. Taking measures — species set out in schedule

23. Directions — species set out in schedule

24. Use of deleterious substance

25. Contents of directions

26. Requirements

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

27-29. Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987

30-32. Fishery (General) Regulations

33-37. Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007

COMING INTO FORCE

38. Registration

SCHEDULE

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES REGULATIONS

DEFINITIONS

Definitions

1. The following definitions apply in these Regulations.

“Act”

« Loi »

“Act” means the Fisheries Act.

“aquatic invasive species”

« espèce aquatique envahissante »

“aquatic invasive species” means a species set out in the schedule.

“indigenous”

« indigène »

“indigenous”, in respect of an aquatic species, means that the species originated naturally in a particular region or body of water.

GENERAL

List of aquatic invasive species

2. The list of aquatic invasive species referred to in subsection 43(3) of the Act is that set out in the schedule.

Designation of species

3. A reference in these Regulations to a species or family of species by its common name as set out in column 1 of an item in the schedule is to be read as a reference to the species or family of species whose scientific name is set out in column 2 of that item.

Inconsistency with other regulations

4. In the event of an inconsistency between these Regulations and any other regulations made under the Act, these Regulations prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

PROHIBITIONS

Prohibition against importation

5. It is prohibited for any person to import members of a species set out in Part 1 of the schedule, including any genetic material capable of propagating the species, into the applicable area set out in column 4 of that Part, unless the member is in the condition for exemption, if any, set out in column 3.

Prohibition against possession

6. It is prohibited for any person to possess members of a species set out in Part 1 of the schedule, including any genetic material capable of propagating the species, within the applicable area set out in column 5 of that Part, unless the member is in the condition for exemption, if any, set out in column 3.

Prohibition against transportation

7. It is prohibited for any person to transport members of a species set out in Part 1 of the schedule, including any genetic material capable of propagating the species, within the applicable area set out in column 6 of that Part, unless the member is in the condition for exemption, if any, set out in column 3.

Prohibition against release

8. It is prohibited for any person to release, or engage in any activity that may lead to the release of, members of a species set out in Part 1 of the schedule, including any genetic material capable of propagating the species, into a body of water frequented by fish within the applicable area set out in column 7 of that Part, unless the member is in the condition for exemption, if any, set out in column 3.

Prohibition — species that are not indigenous

9. It is prohibited for any person, without a federal or provincial permit, licence or authorization, to introduce, or engage in any activity that may lead to the introduction of, an aquatic species into a particular region or body of water frequented by fish where it is not indigenous.

EXEMPTIONS

Aquaculture Activities Regulations

10. Section 17 does not apply in respect of activities that are regulated under the Aquaculture Activities Regulations.

Exemption for certain persons

11. Sections 5 to 8 do not apply to fishery officers or fishery guardians carrying out their duties under these Regulations or to any other person acting under their direction.

Exemption for authorized purposes

12. (1) If the purpose of the importation, possession, transportation or release of members of a species set out in Part 1 of the schedule is for scientific, educational or aquatic invasive species control purposes, sections 5 to 8 do not apply

(a) to employees or persons acting under the direction of (i) an educational institution, (ii) a research facility, (iii) a zoo or aquarium, or (iv) a provincial ministry or federal department with a mandate to manage or control aquatic invasive species; and

(b) to persons engaged in the activities authorized under subsection 17(3).

Permit, licence or authorization required

(2) The employees or persons exempted under subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) to (iii) must hold the applicable permits, licences and authorizations issued under the following provisions:

(a) section 6.1 of the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987;

(b) section 19 of the Quebec Fishery Regulations, 1990;

(c) sections 52 and 56 of the Fishery (General) Regulations;

(d) subsection 9(3) of the Saskatchewan Fishery Regulations, 1995;

(e) subsection 6(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007;

(f) sections 34.1 and 34.2 of Fish Licensing of Ontario, O. Reg. 664/98;

(g) subsection 3(1) of the Fishing Licensing Regulation of Manitoba, Man. Reg. 124/97;

(h) section 3 of the Freshwater Fish Regulation of British Columbia, B.C. Reg. 261/83;

(i) subsection 88(3) and section 88.1 of The Fisheries Regulations of Saskatchewan, R.R.S. c. F-16.1 Reg. 1;

(j) subsection 12(1) of the Fisheries (Alberta) Act of Alberta, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-16;

(k) section 86 of the Wild Life Regulations of Newfoundland and Labrador, C.N.L.R. 1156/96.

Exemption for Lethbridge College

13. (1) Persons employed by the Aquaculture Centre of Excellence at Lethbridge College, and persons under their direction, are exempt, while holding a fish research licence issued under subsection 12(1) of the Fisheries (Alberta) Act of Alberta, from the prohibition set out in section 6 in respect of the possession of grass carp to the extent that the carp are diploid grass carp possessed for the purpose of culturing triploid grass carp.

Exempted persons

(2) Persons holding a cultured fish licence issued under subsection 12(1) of the Fisheries (Alberta) Act of Alberta are exempt from the prohibitions set out in sections 6 and 7 in respect of the possession and transportation of grass carp that are triploid grass carp.

Exemption for holder of cultured fish licence

14. Persons holding and in compliance with a cultured fish licence issued under the Fisheries (Alberta) Act of Alberta in respect of triploid grass carp are exempt from the prohibitions set out in sections 6 to 8 in respect of the use of grass carp, that have been confirmed as triploid, for the purposes of vegetation control in a body of water on privately owned land that is isolated from other bodies of water in a manner that ensures that the grass carp will not adversely affect — in any other body of water — other fish, fish habitat or the use of fish.

Exemption for some persons

15. (1) Sections 5 to 9, and directions issued under subsections 19(2), 23(1) and 24(1), do not apply

(a) in respect of ballast water and sediments, to the persons referred to in section 3 of the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations; or

(b) in respect of the biofouling of a vessel that is over 24 m in length, to the person in charge of the vessel.



Exemption for some vessels

(2) A fishery officer or fishery guardian must not take the measures referred to in subsection 22(1) in respect of

(a) ballast water and sediments, in the case of vessels regulated under section 2 of the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations; or

(b) the biofouling of a vessel that is over 24 m in length.



Definition of “biofouling”

(3) For the purpose of subsections (1) and (2), “biofouling” means the accumulation of aquatic organisms such as micro-organisms, plants and animals on surfaces and structures that are immersed in or exposed to the aquatic environment.

PRESCRIBED PERSONS

Prescribed persons

16. The following persons are prescribed under paragraph 36(5)(f) of the Act:

(a) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans;

(b) for Ontario, the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry;

(c) for Nova Scotia, the provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture;

(d) for Manitoba, the provincial Minister of Conservation and Water Stewardship;

(e) for British Columbia, the provincial Minister of Environment and the provincial Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations;

(f) for Saskatchewan, the provincial Minister of Environment;

(g) for Alberta, the provincial Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development; and

(h) for Yukon, the territorial Minister of Environment.

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

CONTROL AND ERADICATION

Definition of “Minister”

17. (1) For the purpose of this section and section 24, “Minister” means any of the ministers listed in section 16.

Purposes

(2) The Minister may take a measure referred to in subsection (3)

(a) to prevent the introduction or spread of, or to control or eradicate (i) any species set out in Part 1 of the schedule in the areas in which it is prohibited, (ii) any species set out in the schedule in a particular region or body of water frequented by fish where the species is not indigenous and may harm fish, fish habitat or the use of fish, and (iii) any aquatic species, other than a species set out in the schedule, in a particular region or body of water frequented by fish where the aquatic species is not indigenous and may harm fish, fish habitat or the use of fish; and

(b) to treat or destroy any member of a species described in paragraph (a).



Control activities

(3) Despite any other regulations made under the Act, the Minister may

(a) license fishing for the species; or

(b) authorize the deposit of deleterious substances and provide directions for their deposit in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act.

Conditions for authorization

(4) Before authorizing the deposit referred to in paragraph (3)(b), the Minister must consider alternative measures and the possible impact of the deposit on fish, fish habitat or the use of fish.

Authorized deleterious substances

18. The following classes of deleterious substances are authorized for the purposes of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act and of paragraph 17(3)(b) and subsection 24(1):

(a) drugs whose sale is permitted or otherwise authorized, or whose importation is not prohibited, under the Food and Drugs Act; and

(b) pest control products that are registered, or whose use is authorized, under the Pest Control Products Act.



MEASURES AND DIRECTIONS

Notification of species that are not indigenous

19. (1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may notify a person, directly or through a public notice, that an aquatic species is not indigenous in a particular region or body of water frequented by fish.

Directions to stop introduction

(2) In the event that the introduction of an aquatic species into a particular region or body of water frequented by fish where it is not indigenous is imminent or in the process of occurring, a fishery officer may issue a direction to a person

(a) prohibiting that person from engaging in any activity that may lead to that introduction; or

(b) directing that person to cease engaging in any activity that may lead to that introduction.

Requirements

(3) A fishery officer may issue the direction only if the requirements set out in paragraphs 21(b) and (c) are satisfied.

Definitions

20. The following definitions apply in sections 22 to 25.

“carrier”

« porteur »

“carrier” means anything, other than a conveyance or structure, that is a host to, or that facilitates the movement of, a species set out in the schedule.

“conveyance or structure”

« un moyen de transport ou une structure »

“conveyance or structure” means a conveyance or structure that is a host to, or that facilitates the movement of, a species set out in the schedule.

Requirements

21. A fishery officer or fishery guardian may take a measure set out in section 22 or issue a direction set out in section 23 only if

(a) the measure or direction is required (i) to identify the species, (ii) to prevent the introduction or spread of, or to control or eradicate (A) any species set out in Part 1 of the schedule in the areas in which it is prohibited, or (B) any species set out in the schedule in a particular region or body of water frequented by fish where the species is not indigenous and may harm fish, fish habitat or the use of fish, and (iii) to treat or destroy any member of a species described in subparagraph (ii);

(b) the measure or direction does not compromise public safety;

(c) in the case of a measure or direction affecting a vessel, the measure or direction is taken or issued only to the extent that it does not compromise the safety of the vessel or the persons on board and, in the case of vessels over 24 m in length, if the officer has consulted the Minister of Transport or a marine safety inspector before taking the measure or issuing the direction; and

(d) the measure or direction does not involve the deposit of a deleterious substance unless that deposit is authorized by a Minister prescribed under section 16.

Taking measures — species set out in schedule

22. (1) In respect of a species set out in the schedule, a fishery officer or fishery guardian or a person acting under their direction may

(a) treat or destroy a member of the species or a carrier or treat a conveyance or structure;

(b) establish a temporary barrier around the member of the species or a carrier, conveyance or structure; and

(c) post signs or markers that prohibit access around the member of the species or a carrier, conveyance or structure.

Requiring assistance

(2) A person must give all reasonable assistance requested by the fishery officer or fishery guardian to enable them to carry out the measures set out in subsection (1) and must provide any information requested by them that is relevant to the measures if the person

(a) is in possession of a member of a species set out in the schedule; or

(b) is in possession or in charge of a carrier, conveyance or structure or owns or occupies the land, building or place where the member of the species is found.

Directions — species set out in schedule

23. (1) Subject to subsection (2), in respect of a species set out in the schedule, a fishery officer may, for the purpose of preventing the introduction or spread of the species, issue a written direction requiring a person

(a) to restrict any activity that may lead to the introduction or spread of the species;

(b) to restrict access to a place where there are members of the species;

(c) to undertake activities for the purpose of preventing the introduction or spread of the species; and

(d) to undertake activities to treat or destroy members of the species or a carrier or to treat a conveyance or structure.

Persons subject to direction

(2) The direction may only be issued to

(a) a person who is in possession of a member of the species or a carrier, conveyance or structure where a member of the species is found; and

(b) a person who is in charge of a carrier, conveyance or structure or owns or occupies the land, building or place where a member of the species is found.

Exemption from fishing licence

(3) If a direction issued under paragraph (1)(d) requires the use of fishing as a means to destroy members of a species set out in the schedule, the person to whom the direction is issued is exempted from the requirement to possess a licence to fish for that species.

Exemption while under direction

(4) If a direction issued under subsection (1) requires a person to be in possession or to transport a member of a species listed in Part 1 of the Schedule, that person is exempted from sections 6 and 7 to the extent necessary to fulfill the requirements of the direction.

Use of deleterious substance

24. (1) In respect of a species set out in the schedule, the Minister may issue a written direction requiring the following persons to treat or destroy members of the species or a carrier, or to treat a conveyance or structure where a member of the species is found, by depositing a deleterious substance for the purpose of preventing the introduction or spread of the species:

(a) a person who is in possession of a member of the species or a carrier, conveyance or structure where a member of the species is found; and

(b) a person who is in charge of a carrier, conveyance or structure or owns or occupies the land, building or place where a member of the species is found.

Conditions for authorization

(2) Before issuing the direction the Minister must take into account alternative measures and the impact of the deposit on fish, fish habitat and the use of fish.

Requirements

(3) The Minister may only issue the direction if the requirements set out in paragraphs 21(a) to (c) are satisfied.

Exemption while under direction

(4) If a direction issued under subsection (1) requires a person to be in possession of or to transport a member of a species listed in Part 1 of the Schedule, that person is exempted from sections 6 and 7 to the extent necessary to fulfill the requirements of the direction.

Contents of directions

25. (1) Directions issued under subsection 23(1) or 24(1) must

(a) describe the member of the species, and the carrier, conveyance or structure, if there is one, that is the subject of the direction;

(b) briefly describe the reasons for the direction;

(c) set out the time period in respect of which the direction applies, up to a maximum of 15 days with an extension of up to a maximum of 90 days;

(d) describe the requirements set out in subsection 23(1) or 24(1); and

(e) be delivered in person or, if this is not possible, posted in a conspicuous place at or near the location of the member of the species or of the carrier, conveyance or structure.

Further contents

(2) Directions issued under subsection 24(1) must also

(a) set out the place and manner in which the member of the species or carrier, conveyance or structure, if there is one, must be treated or destroyed;

(b) set out the date by which the requirement must be satisfied; and

(c) state the terms and conditions applicable to the deposit of the deleterious substance.

Requirements

26. (1) Every person to whom a direction is issued under subsection 19(2), 23(1) or 24(1)

(a) must follow the requirements specified in the direction; and

(b) is prohibited from engaging in any activity contrary to the requirements specified in the direction.

Prohibition

(2) It is prohibited for any person to enter an area

(a) around which the temporary barrier referred to in paragraph 22(1)(b) has been established; or

(b) around which the signs or markers referred to in paragraph 22(1)(c) have been posted.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

MANITOBA FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1987

27. (1) The portion of subsection 16(1) of the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, 1987 before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

16. (1) No person shall possess live fish or live fish eggs unless authorized

(2) Subsection 16(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) No person shall bring into Manitoba, possess in Manitoba or release into any waters of Manitoba live fish or live fish eggs of a species set out, in respect of Manitoba, in Part 1 of the schedule to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations.

(3) Subsection 16(2.1) of the Regulations is repealed.

28. Subparagraph 25(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(ii) the offal of any fish of a species set out, in respect of Manitoba, in Part 1 of the schedule to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations; or



29. Schedule IX to the Regulations is repealed.

FISHERY (GENERAL) REGULATIONS

30. Subsection 3(4) of the Fishery (General) Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (k), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (l) and by adding the following after paragraph (l):

(m) the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations.

31. The headings before section 50 and sections 50 to 52 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

PART VII

FISHING FOR EXPERIMENTAL, SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL, AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL OR PUBLIC DISPLAY PURPOSES

INTERPRETATION

50. In this Part, “licence” means a licence to fish for experimental, scientific, educational, aquatic invasive species control or public display purposes.

LICENCE

51. No person shall fish for experimental, scientific, educational, aquatic invasive species control or public display purposes unless authorized to do so under a licence.

52. Despite any provisions of any of the Regulations listed in subsection 3(4), the Minister may issue a licence if fishing for experimental, scientific, educational, aquatic invasive species control or public display purposes would be in keeping with the proper management and control of fisheries.

32. Subsection 53(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) There is no fee for a licence to fish for experimental, scientific, educational or aquatic invasive species control purposes.

ONTARIO FISHERY REGULATIONS, 2007

33. (1) The definition “invasive fish” in subsection 1(1) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 is repealed.

(2) Subsection 1(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“invasive species” means a species that is set out, in respect of Ontario, in Part 1 of the schedule to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations. (espèce envahissante)

34. Section 6 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

INVASIVE SPECIES

6. (1) No person shall possess, transport or release members of an invasive species without a licence issued under subsection (2).

(2) The provincial Minister may issue a licence to a person to possess, transport or release invasive species in specified quantities if

(a) they are an employee or a person referred to in subsection 12(1) of the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations;

(b) they use the equipment and controls necessary to protect against any unauthorized release of invasive species into Ontario waters; and

(c) the possession is for scientific, educational or aquatic invasive species control purposes.

35. Section 12 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

12. A person, other than a person fishing under a commercial fishing licence, who catches a fish, other than an invasive species, the retention or possession of which is prohibited by these Regulations, shall immediately return the fish to the waters from which it was caught and, if the fish is alive, release it in a manner that causes the least harm to that fish.

36. Subsection 29(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

29. (1) No person shall use as bait, or possess for use as bait, an invasive species or a live fish that is not a species of baitfish.

37. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is repealed.

COMING INTO FORCE

Registration

38. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

SCHEDULE

(Sections 1 to 3 and 5 to 8, subsection 12(1), paragraph 17(2)(a), section 20, subparagraph 21(a)(ii), subsection 22(1) and paragraph (2)(a), subsections 23(1), (3) and (4) and subsections 24(1) and (4))

PART 1

SPECIES SUBJECT TO PROHIBITIONS AND CONTROLS

The geographic coordinates in th