Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 160, Number 41: Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (Basking Shark Atlantic Population and 14 Other Wildlife Species)

October 10, 2026

Statutory authority
Species at Risk Act

Sponsoring department
Department of the Environment

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Order.)

Executive summary

Issues

COSEWIC, an independent body of experts established under the Species at Risk Act, has assessed 15 aquatic species or designatable units (DUs) as being at risk.

The assessment requires a response from the Minister of the Environment, in consultation with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and triggers a regulatory process culminating in a ministerial recommendation and subsequent GIC decision on whether amendments should be made to Schedule 1 of SARA. The proposed Order to amend Schedule 1 reflects the Minister of the Environment’s recommendation to the GIC, based on the advice of the competent ministers.

Background

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO or the Department) is mandated, among other things, to contribute to a clean and healthy environment and sustainable aquatic ecosystems through habitat protection, oceans management and ecosystems research. Although the responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among all orders of government, DFO plays a leadership role as federal regulator to prevent aquatic species from disappearing from Canada. Parks Canada plays a leadership role in the protection and conservation of species at risk found in or on federal lands and waters administered by Parks Canada, including but not limited to national parks and national marine conservation areas.

COSEWIC is an advisory body established under SARA that assesses or reassesses the status of wildlife species. Members are wildlife biology experts from academia, government, non-governmental organizations and the private sector.

The species proposed for listing or reclassification on Schedule 1 of SARA were assessed by COSEWIC between 2009 and 2019. The full status reports, including the reasons for the classification of each species and the geographic range of each species, are available on the Species at Risk Public Registry.

Under SARA, an extirpated species is a wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild. An endangered species is a wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction. A threatened species is a wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. A species of special concern is a wildlife species that may become threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. If nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its decline, it may become a threatened or an endangered species.

DUs are geographically or genetically distinct populations of the same wildlife species. There is very little cultural or genetic transmission between DUs. For example, two populations of the same species living in different rivers can be considered two distinct DUs.

Species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as threatened, endangered or extirpated benefit from the protection of the SARA general prohibitions, which prohibit the killing, harming, harassing, capturing, taking, possessing, collecting, buying, selling or trading of these species. SARA also prohibits damage or destruction of the residences of listed aquatic species.

Objective

The objective of the proposed Order is to ensure that the various measures available under SARA for the protection, recovery, and management of species at risk are applicable to the species that have been assessed by COSEWIC. This will help maintain Canada’s biodiversity and resilience of Canadian ecosystems by preventing wildlife species from becoming extinct and contributing to their recovery.

Description

The proposed Order would amend Schedule 1 of SARA by

• adding 11 new species (see Table 1);
• reclassifying two species (see Table 2);
• splitting one species that is currently listed into two new DUs (see Table 3); and
• changing the common or scientific names of 11 species (see Table 4). No changes to their classifications are proposed.

Table 1: Species proposed for listing

Species	Scientific name	Proposed status	Range
Basking Shark (Atlantic population)	Cetorhinus maximus	Special concern	Atlantic Ocean
Darkblotched Rockfish	Sebastes crameri	Special concern	Pacific Ocean
Spiny Dogfish (Atlantic population)	Squalus acanthias	Special concern	Atlantic Ocean
North Pacific Spiny Dogfish	Squalus suckleyi	Special concern	Pacific Ocean
Smooth Skate (Laurentian – Scotian population)	Malacoraja senta	Special concern	Atlantic Ocean
Little Quarry Lake Benthic Threespine Stickleback	Gasterosteus aculeatus	Threatened	British Columbia
Little Quarry Lake Limnetic Threespine Stickleback	Gasterosteus aculeatus	Threatened	British Columbia
River Darter (Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations)	Percina shumardi	Endangered	Ontario
Porbeagle	Lamna nasus	Endangered	Atlantic Ocean
Winter Skate (Eastern Scotian Shelf – Newfoundland population)	Leucoraja ocellata	Endangered	Atlantic Ocean
Winter Skate (Gulf of St. Lawrence population)	Leucoraja ocellata	Endangered	Atlantic Ocean

Table 2: Species proposed for reclassification

Species	Scientific name	Current status	Proposed status	Range
Warmouth	Lepomis gulosus	Special concern	Endangered	Ontario
Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Lake population)	Cottus aleuticus	Threatened	Endangered	British Columbia

Table 3: Proposed split of designatable unit of a listed wildlife species
The Rocky Mountain Sculpin (Eastslope Populations) currently listed on Schedule 1 would be removed and replaced by the Rocky Mountain Sculpin populations listed below.

Species	Scientific name	Current status	Proposed status	Range
Rocky Mountain Sculpin (Missouri River populations)	Cottus sp.	Threatened	Threatened	Alberta
Rocky Mountain Sculpin (Saskatchewan – Nelson River populations)	Cottus sp.	Threatened	Threatened	Alberta

Table 4: Proposed name changes

Current name on Schedule 1 of SARA	Proposed new name
Darter, Eastern Sand (Ammocrypta pellucida) Ontario populations	Darter, Eastern Sand (Ammocrypta pellucida) Southwestern Ontario population
Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Alberta population	Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Saskatchewan – Nelson River populations
Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) British Columbia population	Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Pacific populations
Sculpin, Deepwater (Myoxocephalus thompsonii) Great Lakes - Western St. Lawrence populations	Sculpin, Deepwater (Myoxocephalus thompsonii) Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations
Sculpin, Rocky Mountain (Cottus sp.) Westslope populations	Sculpin, Rocky Mountain (Cottus sp.) Pacific populations
Dace, Nooksack (Rhinichthys cataractae ssp.)	Dace, Nooksack (Rhinichthys cataractae)
Atlantic Mud-piddock (Barnea truncata)	Mud-piddock, Atlantic (Barnea truncata)
Porpoise, Harbour (Phocoena phocoena) Pacific Ocean population	Porpoise, Harbour (Phocoena phocoena vomerina) Pacific Ocean population
Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor)	Wolffish, Spotted (Anarhichas minor)
Sucker, Mountain (Catostomus platyrhynchus) Milk River populations	Sucker, Plains (Pantosteus jordani) Missouri population
Grand requin blanc (Carcharodon carcharias) population de l’Atlantique	Requin blanc (Carcharodon carcharias) population de l’Atlantique

Regulatory development

Consultation

Consultations on the proposed amendments to Schedule 1 of SARA were conducted by DFO between 2010 and 2020. Parks Canada shares responsibility for three species proposed to be listed, and collaborated with DFO to ensure Parks Canada stakeholders and Indigenous partners were consulted. For all species, consultation documents were sent to Indigenous groups and key stakeholders such as provincial governments, organizations representing various industries, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), and academia. Consultation documents provide information on the species, including the reason for their COSEWIC designation, and provide an overview of the SARA listing process. In addition, information on the consultations was posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry and, in some cases, in local newspapers and on social media.

Given the time frame since the original consultations for some species occurred, check-ins were also conducted. A notice published on March 24, 2023, on the Species at Risk Public Registry invited interested stakeholders to confirm their previous positions on listing or provide additional information for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to consider in finalizing her advice. The check-in period ended on May 22, 2023.

Details on the consultations for each of the species are provided in Annex 1.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

Indigenous consultations

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous Peoples of Canada, including rights related to activities, practices, and traditions of Indigenous Peoples that are integral to their distinctive culture. The Government of Canada has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous groups when it considers conduct that might adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights.

Details on consultations with Indigenous groups are provided in Annex 1.

Modern treaty obligations

As per the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an assessment of modern treaty implications was conducted on the proposed Order. As illustrated below, five species included in this proposal are found in areas covered by modern treaties. These modern treaties established wildlife management boards (WMBs) that are authorized by the treaty to perform functions in relation to wildlife species within their jurisdictions. In 2023, the WMBs were consulted by the Minister of the Environment as required under section 27 of SARA.

Lists of species covered by modern treaty

• Maa-Nulth First Nations Final Agreement, Nisga’a Final Agreement, Tla’amin Final Agreement, and Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement: Darkblotched Rockfish and North Pacific Spiny Dogfish
• Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement: Basking Shark (Atlantic population), Spiny Dogfish (Atlantic population), and Porbeagle

The assessment of modern treaty implications concluded that the regulatory changes set out in this proposal would have limited impacts on the rights, interests, or self-government provisions of modern treaty partners. The listing proposal has respected the consultation obligations set out in the implicated modern treaties, as well as the spirit and intent of the agreements.

DFO and Parks Canada, as appropriate, will continue to work in collaboration with modern treaty partners in the development of management plans and recovery strategies for species listed under SARA.

Details on the responses received from WMBs are provided in Annex 1.

Instrument choice

Regulatory and alternative approaches were considered during the development of this proposal. While voluntary stewardship approaches in collaboration with other governments or organizations could be used to generate positive outcomes, it was determined that listing the species on Schedule 1 of SARA would provide the best protection and support for the recovery of the species while also providing greater opportunities for stewardship and collaboration. In addition, as per the Fisheries and Oceans Canada Species at Risk Act Listing Policy and Directive for “Do Not List” Advice, the Department will advise Environment and Climate Change Canada that a recommendation be made to list species in accordance with the COSEWIC assessment, unless there is a compelling rationale not to do so. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans provides this advice to the Minister of the Environment, who takes it into account when making the recommendation to the Governor in Council.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The incremental impacts (benefits and costs) of the proposed listing Order are assessed as a difference between the baseline and the proposed regulatory scenarios, in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide. The incremental costs and benefits associated with the SARA general prohibitions and anticipated exemptions have been assessed over a period of 10 years (2025–2034). The costs and benefits have been estimated in 2023 constant dollars in present value terms using a discount rate of 7% (unless otherwise stated). The present value base year is 2025, and the impacts for the first year of the analytical time period are not discounted.

Incremental benefits

The application of SARA prohibitions as well as the preparation of a recovery strategy and of an action plan would benefit the conservation of the species proposed to be listed as endangered or threatened by offering a range of measures that DFO and partners may implement to advance the recovery of the species. For species proposed to be listed as species of special concern, management plans would offer a range of measures that DFO and partners may implement to prevent species from becoming endangered or threatened. As stated in SARA, wildlife, in all its forms, has value in and of itself and is valued by Canadians for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, recreational, educational, historical, economic, medical, ecological, and scientific reasons.

Overall, the recovery of the species to be listed is expected to contribute to maintaining biodiversity in Canada. A higher diversity of species supports healthy and productive ecosystems that are generally more stable and resilient to change.

Incremental costs

Species proposed to be listed as species of special concern

Since species listed as species of special concern are not subject to the general prohibitions of SARA, current fisheries that interact with these species would be unaffected by listing. As a result, there are no incremental costs to Indigenous groups or other stakeholders.

When a species is listed as a species of special concern, a management plan must be developed and published within three years. The plan must include measures for the conservation of the species that the competent ministers consider appropriate.

Conservation measures contained in management plans typically include monitoring and research activities such as surveys to determine population trends and research to understand habitat requirements. Conservation measures can also include outreach activities such as education and awareness programs directed at marine and freshwater resource users.

Implementation of management plans is neither a requirement under SARA nor the proposed Order. Therefore, implementation costs of the plans are not attributable to the proposed Order. However, SARA requires DFO and Parks Canada, as appropriate, to monitor, assess and report on the implementation of management plans every five years. The implementation is subject to priorities and budgetary constraints. Implementation is monitored, and outstanding measures are undertaken where possible. In addition, other partners such as provinces, territories, and environmental non-governmental organizations may choose to implement measures contained in management plans.

The federal government would incur some costs for the preparation of management plans. Management plans would need to be developed for five species added to the list of species of special concern. The cost to Government for developing a new management plan is dependent on complexity. On average, the per-unit cost to develop a simple and complex management plan is estimated to be approximately $32,200 and $40,700, respectively. For the five species proposed to be added as species of special concern, one would require a simple management plan, while the other four would require complex management plans. Therefore, the incremental cost to Government is estimated at approximately $170,200 (present value discounted at 7%) over a 10-year period, or an annualized average value of $22,600.

Species proposed to be listed as threatened and endangered, and species to be reclassified from species of special concern to endangered

The listing of aquatic species as threatened or endangered triggers the general prohibitions, which would impose costs on affected stakeholders and Indigenous groups, unless the activities impacting the species are authorized. Under SARA, the competent minister may enter into an agreement with a person, or issue a permit to a person, authorizing the person to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals, if the activity meets several preconditions, particularly that it does not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species. Further, recovery strategies and action plans provide the opportunity to establish exemptions to the prohibitions for activities that do not jeopardize the recovery of the species and are authorized under an Act of Parliament (e.g. under the Fisheries Act).

When a species is listed as threatened or endangered, a recovery strategy and an action plan must be developed, and critical habitat must be identified, to the extent possible, and subsequently protected. A recovery strategy identifies what needs to be done to stop or reverse the decline of a species. The action plan outlines the recovery measures required to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the recovery strategy. Recovery measures contained in recovery strategies and action plans typically include monitoring and research activities such as surveys to determine population trends, and research to understand habitat requirements. Recovery measures can also include outreach activities such as education and awareness programs directed at marine and freshwater resource users.

The implementation of recovery strategies and action plans for endangered and threatened species works in a similar way to the implementation of management plans for species of special concern.

Cost to Canadians and businesses

While there is no directed commercial fishery for the species proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered, Porbeagle, Winter Skate (Gulf of St. Lawrence population), and Winter Skate (Eastern Scotian Shelf – Newfoundland population) are caught as bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries. The incremental costs to businesses are discussed below and estimated to total approximately $11,000 over the 10-year period or an annualized average value of $1,500 (present value discounted at 7%).

If the Porbeagle and the two Winter Skate DUs are listed, bycatch could be permitted; however, it could not be retained in commercial or recreational fisheries. For the purposes of the economic analysis, and based on the Department’s scientific analysis, the Department assumes that all fisheries interacting with these species would meet the requirements for SARA permits or exemptions. Requirements include that the activity will not jeopardize the species’ recovery or survival. On this basis, the economic analysis further assumes that, upon listing, DFO would use existing mechanisms (i.e. fishing licences) to authorize bycatch of Porbeagle and Winter Skate in licensed fisheries, such that licence holders in fisheries that are known to interact with these species would not have to apply for a separate SARA permit.

Currently, very little Porbeagle catch is retained — most of the incidentally caught Porbeagle in Atlantic Canada are returned to the water. Retention in food, social, ceremonial (FSC) fisheries could be permitted under a recovery strategy if certain conditions are met — notably that the fishing activity is authorized under the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations and that it will not jeopardize the recovery of the species. The commercial fisheries that interact with Porbeagle and the associated processing sector would see some loss in revenue, as retention of Porbeagle bycatch in commercial fisheries would be prohibited. Given the low volume of landings, the loss of revenue would be minor. For the three-year period from 2020 to 2022, eight fishing enterprises landed Porbeagle. Annual commercial fishing revenue from Porbeagle landings represented less than 1% of the total landed value for these fishing enterprises. Incremental costs (profit loss) were estimated at approximately $1,000 to the harvesting sector and $400 to the processing sector annually. The resulting incremental cost (profit loss) to commercial fisheries interacting with Porbeagle and the processing sector is $11,000 over the 10-year period or an annualized average value of $1,500 (present value discounted at 7%). Currently, Porbeagle bycatch cannot be retained in any recreational or charter fisheries. Therefore, there will be no incremental costs to anglers or businesses operating in the recreational fishing sector as a result of listing Porbeagle as endangered.

With respect to Winter Skate, under current management measures, bycatch of Winter Skate (Gulf of St. Lawrence population) cannot be retained in any commercial fishery and must be returned to the water where it was caught, in the manner that causes the least harm. There would be a loss of revenue for the commercial fisheries that are currently allowed to retain Winter Skate (Eastern Scotian Shelf – Newfoundland population) bycatch. There were no commercial landings of Winter Skate (all DUs) between 2014 and 2019. The average annual value of Winter Skate landings for the three-year period from 2020 to 2022 was under $10,000 per year and predominantly reported as bycatch by 20 fishing enterprises. Furthermore, during this period, the annual commercial fishing revenue from Winter Skate landings (all DUs) represented less than 2% of the total landed value for these fishing enterprises. Therefore, there would be negligible costs from the prohibition on retaining Winter Skate bycatch.

In the Gulf region, retention of skate is not permitted in the recreational groundfish fishery. Although there is no data on the number of skates retained in recreational fisheries in the Maritimes region, information from the Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada, 2015 suggests that skates are not highly sought-after species. Furthermore, a variety of groundfish and other species are potentially available to anglers to offset any loss of Winter Skate landings. Therefore, costs associated with the potential loss of any Winter Skate retention in recreational fisheries are anticipated to be low.

Commercial fisheries interacting with Porbeagle and Winter Skate would see a slight increase in reporting requirements (i.e. bycatch reporting through logbooks). Reporting bycatch would be added to existing reporting mechanisms that are implemented through licence conditions issued under the Fisheries Act framework. Harvesters in most fisheries already submit a SARA logbook per trip. Therefore, the only incremental reporting requirement involves documenting the date and location (e.g. latitude and longitude coordinates) of the Porbeagle and Winter Skate interactions, resulting in minimal impacts. Moreover, the last three years of data on landings show that, on average, two reports per year of Winter Skate (all DUs) bycatch were reported by 20 fishing enterprises, and an average of one report per year for Porbeagle bycatch was reported by 8 fishing enterprises. Given this low frequency of known interactions with Porbeagle and Winter Skate, the incremental costs to commercial fishing enterprises resulting from mandatory reporting requirements are estimated to be negligible.

The listing of Little Quarry Lake Benthic Threespine Stickleback and Little Quarry Lake Limnetic Threespine Stickleback as threatened, of River Darter (Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations) as endangered, and the reclassification of Warmouth from species of special concern to endangered are not expected to result in incremental costs to Canadians and businesses due to the limited human interactions with these species and existing protection mechanisms already in place. It is unlikely that any FSC fisheries interact with these species; therefore, no impacts on Indigenous communities are expected.

The only species proposed to be listed as endangered that is found in waters administered by Parks Canada is Warmouth. Given that fishing is prohibited within Point Pelee National Park, and that regulations under the responsibility of Parks Canada prohibit activities that could harm the species, there are no incremental costs.

Costs to Government — permits, new recovery strategies and action plans, and enforcement

The federal government would bear costs for the development of recovery strategies and action plans, as well as minor costs for compliance promotion and enforcement such as engaging the public in the protection and conservation of species at risk and conducting patrols to monitor for unauthorized possession of species at risk and other offences under SARA. For example, fishery officers board fishing vessels, inspect catches at dockside, and respond to complaints received from the public.

Six new recovery strategies and action plans would need to be developed for the species added to the list as threatened or endangered.^{footnote 2} The cost to Government of developing a new recovery strategy and an action plan is dependent on complexity.

On average, the per-unit cost to develop a simple and a complex recovery strategy is estimated to be approximately $46,700 and $63,700, respectively. Furthermore, the average per-unit cost to develop a simple and a complex action plan is estimated to be approximately $45,400 and $61,100, respectively. For the six species proposed to be added as threatened or endangered, five would require simple recovery strategies and action plans, while the other would require a complex recovery strategy and action plan. Therefore, the total incremental costs to Government for developing six recovery strategies and action plans are estimated to be approximately $560,900 over the 10-year period or an annualized average value of $74,600 (present value discounted at 7%).

For fishery officers, the addition of species to Schedule 1 of SARA would result in increased inspection time. Fishery officers would also need training for species identification.

Furthermore, the federal government would bear negligible administrative costs for ensuring fisheries that incidentally catch Porbeagle and Winter Skate are in compliance with SARA. For the purposes of the economic analysis, it is assumed that harvesters and anglers that are known to interact with Porbeagle and Winter Skate would not have to apply for a SARA permit. As explained earlier, it is assumed that DFO would use existing mechanisms and authorize bycatch of these species upon listing, provided certain conditions are met, including that the activities are seen as not jeopardizing the survival or recovery of the species. Similarly, the recovery strategies could exempt incidental catch on a longer-term basis if these activities are authorized under an Act of Parliament and do not jeopardize the recovery of the species. For activities other than those mentioned above, to lawfully affect a listed species, its critical habitat or its residence, individuals would be required to apply to the Minister for a SARA permit. The costs associated with completing the permit application are anticipated to be negligible for those who apply.

Costs to Government — amendments to the recovery strategies and action plans

The federal government would bear costs to amend two recovery strategies and two action plans. On average, the per-unit cost to amend a recovery strategy is approximately $29,900, and the per-unit cost to amend an action plan is estimated to be approximately $27,800.

Amending the status of the Rocky Mountain Sculpin (Eastslope populations) to reflect the change in DUs as assessed by COSEWIC is minor, as there is no change in the listing status of threatened species. Therefore, there is no change to the prohibitions or recovery planning that is required under SARA. The existing recovery strategy (2012) and action plan (2019) would be updated to reflect the new DUs, but no changes to the conservation measures included in these documents would be required. Therefore, the total incremental costs to Government for amending the recovery strategy and the action plan for the threatened species is estimated to be $52,200 over the 10-year period or an annualized average value of $6,900 (present value discounted at 7%).

In 2003, the Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Lake population) was listed under Schedule 1 of SARA as threatened. A recovery strategy was published in 2007, followed by an action plan in 2017. All of the recovery measures would remain in place following a Schedule 1 status change to endangered. Reclassifying the species from threatened to endangered on Schedule 1 will not result in additional prohibitions or requirements under SARA. The total incremental costs to Government for amending the recovery strategy and the action plan for one endangered species are estimated to be approximately $55,800 over the 10-year period, or an annualized average of $7,400 (present value discounted at 7%).

The total incremental cost to Government for amending recovery strategies and action plans is estimated to be approximately $108,000 over the 10-year period or an annualized average value of $14,400 (present value discounted at 7%).

Overall costs

Based on the analysis above, the overall incremental costs of this regulatory proposal are anticipated to be low. The incremental cost to businesses is estimated at $11,000 over 10 years or an annualized average value of $1,500 (present value discounted at 7%). The total cost to Government for developing and amending management plans, recovery strategies, and action plans is estimated at approximately $839,100 over 10 years or an annualized average value of $111,700 (present value discounted at 7%). Management measures that may be proposed in the recovery strategies and the accompanying action plans as a result of listing species under SARA may have future impacts that cannot be estimated until the specific management measures to be identified in the recovery documents are established and available for analysis. The total cost of the proposed listing to government and businesses is estimated to be approximately $850,200 over 10 years or an annualized average value of $113,100 (present value discounted at 7%).

The overall incremental costs of this regulatory proposal to industry, and government are presented in the table below.

Table 5: Incremental Industry and Government Present Value Costs (2023 Can$)
Impacts occurring in the first period are not discounted.

Stakeholder	Description	Cost (2025 to 2034)	Annualized cost
Industry	Foregone profits	$11,000	$1,500
Government	Developing new recovery documents	$731,100	$97,300
	Amending recovery documents	$108,000	$14,400
	Total	$839,100	$111,700
n/a	Total incremental costs	$850,200	$113,100

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Small business lens

There may be negligible incremental costs (lost profits) amounting to approximately $1,500 per year to small businesses operating in the commercial fish harvesting, recreational fishing, and processing sectors that incidentally catch the Porbeagle or the Winter Skate. However, the incremental costs to these sectors, comprised primarily of small businesses, were estimated to be negligible in the above economic analysis and are unlikely to impact their operations.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no incremental change in the administrative burden on business. Harvesters are already required to report on bycatch as a result of the existing license conditions; therefore, the addition of Porbeagle and Winter Skate is not expected to result in incremental administrative costs. No regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The regulatory proposal will help to protect Canada’s biological diversity, and fulfills the commitment made by Canada under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to develop or maintain necessary legislation or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a strategic environmental assessment was conducted on this proposal. This proposal would result in positive environmental effects by promoting the survival and recovery of aquatic species at risk.

Further, the proposed Order is expected to support the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) goal of protecting and recovering species and conserving Canadian biodiversity by enhancing protection and recovery actions for the aquatic species proposed to be listed. The proposed Order would also contribute to the FSDS goal of conserving and protecting Canada’s oceans by strengthening the resilience of marine and coastal environments.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) was adopted in December 2022 at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Government of Canada is responsible for leading the development of Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy and reporting on Canada’s progress to meet the targets. One way for Canada to support the KMGBF is by protecting domestic species at risk to halt species extinction and reduce extinction risk.

Gender-based analysis plus

Based on analyses undertaken, negligible impacts on specific population groups have been identified for the proposed Order. For those species to be listed as threatened or endangered, minor losses of revenue are anticipated for some small and medium scale harvesters and seafood processors (that target other species and retain certain bycatch). These employers are typically located in rural areas, hire seasonal workers, and offer generally modest wages.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The Minister of the Environment (as the Minister responsible for Parks Canada) shares responsibility for the Darkblotched Rockfish, North Pacific Spiny Dogfish, and Warmouth, and is responsible for individuals of these species found in or on federal lands and waters administered by Parks Canada. Front-line staff, including park wardens, would be given the appropriate information regarding these species in order to inform visitors on prevention measures and engage them in the protection and conservation of species at risk. DFO and Parks Canada, as appropriate, will develop recovery strategies and action plans for endangered and threatened species, and management plans for species of special concern as required by SARA. In addition, the competent ministers will report on the implementation of recovery strategies, action plans, and management plans in the Species at Risk Public Registry. SARA requires reporting on recovery strategies to be completed every five years until their objectives have been achieved or the species’ recovery is no longer feasible, and reporting on action plans must be completed five years after the plan comes into effect. For management plans, reporting must be completed every five years until its objectives have been achieved.

Compliance and enforcement

Fishery officers conduct patrols to monitor for unauthorized possession of species at risk, and other offences under SARA. For example, they board fishing vessels, inspect catches at dockside, and respond to complaints received from the public. In terms of compliance promotion, fishery officers would proactively promote compliance with protection measures when attending or hosting meetings with harvesters. In addition, fishery officers would hand out communications items such as SARA species identification cards.

SARA provides for penalties for contraventions to the Act, including fines or imprisonment, seizure and forfeiture of things seized or of the proceeds of their disposition. Alternative measures agreements may also be used to deal with an alleged offender under certain conditions. SARA also provides for inspections and search and seizure operations by enforcement officers designated under SARA. Under the penalty provisions of SARA, a corporation found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $300,000, a non-profit corporation is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000, and any other person is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both. A corporation found guilty of an indictable offence is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000,000, a non-profit corporation to a fine of not more than $250,000, and any other person to a fine of not more than $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.

Service standards

SARA allows individuals to apply to the Minister(s) for a permit to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residence of its individuals. The Permits Authorizing an Activity Affecting Listed Wildlife Species Regulations impose a 90-day timeline on the Minister to either issue or refuse permits.

Contact

Species at Risk Program
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
200 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E6
Email: SARA_LEP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Annex 1 — Consultations
Species of special concern

Basking Shark (Atlantic population)

A total of 26 responses were received during the consultation process that occurred from December 2010 to February 2011. Twenty-three of the responses received either supported listing or had no concerns with listing. All ENGOs, Indigenous groups, and members of the public that responded supported listing, or had no concerns with listing.

Three of the responses received opposed listing. Two of these responses were from organizations representing the fishing industry. One organization cited concerns about potential additional requirements for observer coverage and stated that current management measures are sufficient to protect this species. The other organization opposed listing based on the perception that listing could stop other fisheries from occurring. The third opposing response came from the Government of Nova Scotia, which suggested that conservation of this species be addressed through other means such as the Fisheries Act. DFO responded to these stakeholders by clarifying that no increase in observer coverage would be triggered as a result of listing the Basking Shark, and that one of the potential threats to the species (ship strikes) cannot be effectively addressed through the Fisheries Act. Further, DFO clarified that, because the Basking Shark is proposed for listing as a species of special concern, prohibitions would not apply if the species were listed under SARA.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of four responses were received. All check-in responses either supported listing or had no position on listing. Two of these were received from ENGOs in support of listing. In addition, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed its previous position supporting listing. One Indigenous organization had no position on listing.

Responses from Indigenous groups and wildlife management boards

During the 2010–2011 consultations, four responses were received from First Nations. Three of them either supported listing or raised no concerns.

The other Indigenous organization indicated that they could not provide a position on listing due to their concerns with larger SARA policy issues, citing delays in reassessments and long timelines for listing decisions. During the 2023 check-ins, the same Indigenous organization expressed concerns with DFO’s response to the decline of the Basking Shark without indicating support or opposition to listing. DFO acknowledges their concerns and reaffirms the Department’s intention to work in collaboration with Indigenous groups.

The Basking Shark (Atlantic population) is found in an area managed by one WMB. The WMB did not provide a position on listing.

Darkblotched Rockfish

A total of two responses were received during the consultation process that occurred in October and November 2011. In addition to the information that was sent to key stakeholders, information on the consultations was presented at the Groundfish Forum meeting held in Nanaimo in October 2011. Several groups representing the fishing industry were present.

Both responses supported listing: one was received from an ENGO and the other was from the Government of British Columbia.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of five responses were received. Four of these responses supported listing or had no concerns with listing. One of these four came from an ENGO, one was from the Government of British Columbia, while the other two responses were from Indigenous groups. The fifth response came from an Indigenous group with no position on listing.

Responses from Indigenous groups and wildlife management boards

No responses from Indigenous groups were received during the 2011 consultations. However, during the 2023 check-ins, three responses were received from First Nations or Indigenous organizations. Two of these responses supported listing, and the other response gave no position on listing.

The Darkblotched Rockfish is found in an area managed by four WMBs. Two WMBs gave no position on listing, one gave no response and one opposed listing. The response that opposed listing came from a WMB who stated that there is insufficient science to justify listing and that insufficient information on the potential impacts to their harvesting and economic rights were provided. However, since no restrictions would result from listing the species as a species of special concern, DFO does not anticipate impacts on Indigenous communities. Further, listing the species would provide additional opportunities for scientific research and monitoring.

Spiny Dogfish (Atlantic population)

During the consultations that occurred from December 2010 to February 2011, DFO received a total of 25 responses. The majority of comments received were supportive of listing with 14 supportive responses from the Government of Prince Edward Island, ENGOs, the public and the fishing industry. Seven responses raised no concerns or were unclear about their position and 4 responses opposed listing. Two of the comments that did not support listing came from representatives of the fishing industry, who voiced concerns about potential additional requirements for observer coverage and stated that current management measures are sufficient to protect this species. The other two responses opposing listing came from the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. They both stated that dogfish are abundant, and that the species is effectively managed using existing regulations. While the species remains relatively abundant in Canada, the reasons COSEWIC found the species to be a species of special concern include low potential to reproduce, long generation time, and uncertainty regarding the abundance of mature females. Fisheries affecting dogfish will continue to be managed under the Fisheries Act if the species is listed under SARA; however, the species will further benefit from additional funding, profile, and conservation activities from the SARA listing.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of six responses were received. One comment received from an ENGO supported listing, and two comments from Indigenous organizations gave no position on listing. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador opposed listing for the same reasons as stated before. Two comments received from a fishing industry and a member of the public opposed listing and suggested the COSEWIC report is out of date. The proposal to add this species to the list, however, takes into consideration the most recent scientific information. Research published since the COSEWIC assessment indicates a decline in female adult dogfish since 2012.

Responses from Indigenous groups and wildlife management boards

During the 2010–2011 consultations, two responses were received from First Nations, who raised no concerns with listing. In addition, two responses from Indigenous organizations did not provide a clear position.

During the 2023 check-ins, one Indigenous organization expressed concerns with the population estimates in the Maritimes and the length of the listing process without providing a clear position on listing. DFO is actively working to improve listing timelines and address policy gaps.

Spiny Dogfish (Atlantic population) is found in an area managed by one WMB. The WMB did not provide a position on listing.

North Pacific Spiny Dogfish

During the consultations that occurred from November 2012 to January 2013, DFO received a total of 14 responses. Of these, 3 responses from members of the public supported listing. The remaining 11 responses opposed listing and were received from the Province of British Columbia, five members of the public, and five industry stakeholders.

In addition to the information that was sent to key stakeholders, information on the consultations was presented at a Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC) meeting and at a Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board meeting in November 2012. Fishing industry stakeholders, including members from sport fishing associations and commercial fishing advisory committees, attended these meetings. During both these meetings, the CIC expressed that they do not support listing of Spiny Dogfish.

Four additional responses from fishing industry stakeholders stated opposition to listing. In general, they stated that the criteria used by COSEWIC to classify a species as a species of special concern were not met for this species. Furthermore, listing opponents believe that current management measures are sufficient.

DFO responded to these concerns by clarifying how assessments are done by COSEWIC and explaining the reasons for the designation as a species of special concern (e.g. low fecundity, long generation time, uncertainty in trends in abundance, reduction in size composition, and demonstrated vulnerability to overfishing). Further, since these consultations occurred, the commercial fishery for this species is no longer active.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of five responses were received. Three responses supported listing: one from an ENGO and two from First Nations. The Province of British Columbia indicated that they now have no concerns with listing. One Indigenous organization responded and gave no position on listing.

Responses from Indigenous groups and wildlife management boards

During the 2012–2013 consultations, no responses from Indigenous groups were received. However, during the 2023 check-ins, three responses came from Indigenous organizations. Two were in support of listing, and one did not provide a clear position.

North Pacific Spiny Dogfish is found in an area managed by four WMBs. One WMB did not respond, while two WMBs responded, but provided no position on listing. One of the WMBs that did not state a position on listing recommended that DFO consult with the Nation on how a SARA listing would constrain economic opportunities. Following further consultation with this WMB, DFO did not receive a position on listing. The fourth WMB opposed listing and mentioned that there is insufficient science to justify listing, that insufficient information on the potential impacts to their harvesting and economic rights were provided, and that they recommend the species not be listed. However, since no restrictions would result from listing the species as a species of special concern, DFO does not anticipate impacts on Indigenous communities.

Smooth Skate (Laurentian-Scotian population)

During the consultation period that occurred from May to July 2015, DFO received a total of 16 responses for the Smooth Skate (Laurentian-Scotian population). Eight of these responses supported listing or had no concerns with listing, four opposed listing, and four did not specify a position.

The eight responses that supported listing or had no concerns with listing were received from Indigenous groups, a member of the public, and provincial governments. The Government of Nova Scotia supported listing and the governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick both had no concerns with listing.
Two of the responses that opposed listing were received from provincial governments and two were from the fishing industry. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador voiced their opposition to listing as they felt that the population size and trends for the species did not appear to warrant listing. However, COSEWIC found the species to be a species of special concern for reasons including steep declines in abundance and area of occupancy in the Scotian Shelf, which used to be the centre of abundance, and increases in natural mortality of adults in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Government of Quebec also opposed listing the species, raising concerns regarding the effects on commercial fishing and coastal communities. Two representatives from the fishing industry opposed listing of the species. They stated that actual abundance is likely substantially greater than the estimates in the COSEWIC status report, that there is uncertainty around bycatch rates for many fisheries, and that adverse economic, cultural and social impacts could result if the species was listed. Since no restrictions would result from listing the species as a species of special concern, DFO does not anticipate any such adverse impacts. Further, listing the species would provide additional opportunities for scientific research and monitoring, including through collaborative initiatives, which could help reduce areas of uncertainty.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of three responses were received. Two of the responses supported listing and were received from an ENGO and an Indigenous organization. The third response came from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, who confirmed their previous position against listing.

Responses from Indigenous groups

During the 2010–2011 consultations, six responses came from Indigenous organizations. Four supported listing or had no concerns with listing, while two did not provide a clear position on listing.

During the 2023 check-ins, one Indigenous organization provided a response in support of listing Smooth Skate. They suggest an increase in scientific knowledge, institutional capacity, and research is needed to conserve this species.

Threatened species

Little Quarry Lake Benthic Threespine Stickleback and Little Quarry Lake Limnetic Threespine Stickleback

There are a limited number of stakeholders involved for these species because they have a very limited distribution restricted to one small lake in coastal British Columbia (Little Quarry Lake).

A total of four responses were received following the public consultations that occurred in February and March 2018. Three responses in support of listing were received from the Province of British Columbia, a member of the public and academia. No responses opposed listing. One private business gave no clear position on listing, but they mentioned that forestry should be removed as a threat because the species are adequately protected under other legislation. DFO responded that the threat of land use was identified as negligible in the COSEWIC status report and therefore it was not considered in the development of the listing advice.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of three responses were received. Two responses came from Indigenous organizations and did not provide a clear position on listing. A third response came from the Province of British Columbia, who supported listing these species.

Responses from Indigenous groups

During the 2018 consultations, no responses were received from Indigenous organizations. During the 2023 consultation check-ins, two Indigenous organizations responded but gave no clear position on listing. One organization mentioned that the species occur outside their traditional territory, while the other organization asked how First Nations rights and rights holders’ interests would be considered in the listing decision. DFO responded that input received from First Nations right holders will be considered in the development of the final listing advice.

Endangered species

River Darter (Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations)

Two comments were received during the consultations that occurred from March to June 2020. One response came from a conservation authority and another from a member of the public. Both comments supported listing.

In 2023, during the check-ins, only one response was received. The response came from a First Nation and did not indicate any concerns with listing.

Responses from Indigenous groups

During the 2020 consultations, no responses from Indigenous groups were received. During the 2023 check-ins, one First Nation responded that they had no concerns with listing and indicated an interest in being notified of any changes in the status of the species.

Porbeagle

During the consultations that occurred from April to June 2018, DFO received a total of 151 responses. Of these, 122 supported listing, 20 did not support listing, and 9 did not provide a clear position. The majority of the comments received came from the general public and largely supported listing, highlighting that Porbeagle is an important part of the Northwest Atlantic ecosystem.

Seven responses that opposed listing came from the fishing industry. The main arguments raised by these stakeholders were that there are significant unknowns with respect to the Porbeagle population, that listing would cause economic and social impacts to local communities, and that current management measures under the Fisheries Act are sufficient.

Three provincial governments also opposed listing. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador indicated that they do not support listing because they believe the species is expected to increase. The Government of Nova Scotia indicated that they do not support listing as they believe recovery is possible through existing tools available under the Fisheries Act. They also felt that listing under SARA could result in socioeconomic impacts to fisheries with Porbeagle bycatch. The Government of Quebec indicated that they do not support listing because it could result in changes to commercial fishing licence conditions and that they were not able to fully assess the potential impacts of listing on the industry.

DFO does not expect adverse impacts on the fishing industry from listing the species given the permitting provisions in SARA and based on the Department’s scientific and economic analyses, as explained in the “Species proposed to be listed as threatened and endangered, and species to be reclassified from species of special concern to endangered” section above. Furthermore, listing would allow for knowledge gaps to be addressed through additional science and monitoring of the species, which would help inform recovery actions.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of five responses were received. Two came from ENGOs and supported listing. Two responses came from Indigenous groups: one had no concerns with listing, and the other had no position on listing. One response was received from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who reconfirmed their opposition to listing.

Responses from Indigenous groups and wildlife management boards

During the 2018 consultations, 14 responses came from Indigenous groups. Eight responses supported listing, two opposed listing, and four did not provide a clear response. Comments raised by Indigenous groups included the need for better data and conservation measures, and the need to consider cultural impacts and Indigenous traditional knowledge in species management. Listing under SARA would support these interests as it would allow for further research, recovery measures, and collaboration, for example through recovery planning.

During the 2023 check-ins, two responses came from Indigenous organizations. One did not provide a clear position but expressed concerns about the state of the Porbeagle population and the long duration of the listing process. The other response indicated no concerns with listing.

Porbeagle is found in an area managed by one WMB that did not express a position on listing.

Winter Skate (Eastern Scotian Shelf – Newfoundland population)

During the consultation period that occurred from April to June 2018, DFO received a total of 20 responses. Of these, nine supported or did not have any concerns with listing, five did not support listing, and six did not provide a clear position.

Of the nine responses that supported listing or had no concerns with listing, three responses came from Indigenous organizations, two came from ENGOs, and four came from members of the public.

Of the five responses that opposed listing, three responses came from the fishing industry. These respondents stated that the current levels of fishing mortality are negligible for this population of Winter Skate. They also mentioned that listing does not address the high levels of natural predation from Grey Seals and that listing could have profound economic, cultural, and social impacts.

The Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador were not supportive of listing and raised arguments comparable to the comments received from industry. The Province of Prince Edward Island did not provide a clear position.

DFO does not expect adverse impacts on the fishing industry from listing the species for the reasons explained in the “Species proposed to be listed as threatened and endangered, and species to be reclassified from species of special concern to endangered” section. In addition, listing would allow for additional funding for science and monitoring, including research into the causes of natural mortality of adult skates, such as seal predation, to better understand and mitigate threats to the species’ survival.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of four responses were received. One Indigenous group and two ENGOs supported listing, while the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed its previous position against listing.

Responses from Indigenous groups

During the 2018 consultations, five responses were received from Indigenous groups. Two Indigenous groups supported listing and one had no concerns with listing. While no Indigenous groups opposed listing, one respondent, who did not indicate a position on listing, expressed concern that the current management of the species was ineffective.

In 2023, during the check-ins, one response was received from an Indigenous organization who supported listing.

Winter Skate (Gulf of St. Lawrence population)

During the consultation period that occurred between February and May 2019, DFO received 15 responses. Of these, seven supported listing, three did not support listing, and five did not provide a clear position.

Of the seven responses supporting listing, two were received from members of the public, three were received from Indigenous organizations, and two were received from ENGOs.

Two responses received from the fishing industry opposed listing. These stakeholders indicated that listing would not address the issue of predation from Grey Seals and would impose costs on fisheries while being detrimental to harvesters and rural coastal communities.

Responses were received from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. The Province of Nova Scotia opposed listing mentioning that the species’ decline is not fishery-related and likely due to Grey Seal predation. They also stated in their response that the fishing sector has been proactive in addressing pressures on skate species and these efforts are likely more effective than listing in protecting the species. The other provincial governments that responded did not provide clear positions on listing.

DFO does not expect any adverse impacts on the fishing industry from listing the species, as described in the “Species proposed to be listed as threatened and endangered, and species to be reclassified from species of special concern to endangered” section. In addition, listing would allow for additional funding for science and monitoring, including research into the causes of natural mortality of adult skates, such as seal predation, to fill knowledge gaps and better understand and mitigate threats to the species’ recovery.

In 2023, during the check-ins, a total of three responses were received, all of which supported listing. Two responses were received from ENGOs and the other was from an Indigenous organization.

Responses from Indigenous groups

During the 2018 consultations, five responses came from Indigenous organizations. Three responses supported listing while two did not provide a clear position. Two Indigenous organizations expressed concerns regarding Grey Seal predation.

In 2023, during the check-ins, one response came from an Indigenous organization who supported listing and expressed concerns with existing skate management.

Species proposed for reclassification

Warmouth — From species of special concern to endangered

Three comments were received during the consultations that occurred from March to June 2020. All responses received supported listing: two were from members of the public and one was from an ENGO. No responses were received from Indigenous groups.

In 2023, during the check-ins, the only response received was from a First Nation that expressed no concerns with listing.

Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Lake population) — From threatened to endangered

Coastrange Sculpin (Cultus Lake population) was listed as threatened in 2003. In 2019, COSEWIC reassessed this species as endangered due to increased pressure from a variety of threats. Under SARA, prohibitions and recovery planning requirements are the same for threatened and endangered species. The species already benefits from protection under SARA prohibitions and a 2019 critical habitat order. In addition, a recovery strategy was published in 2007, followed by an action plan in 2017, which would remain in effect. The reclassification would not generate any new requirements and would not impact measures currently in place. Therefore, no consultations have been conducted on this status change proposal.

Previously listed DU to be divided into two new DUs

Rocky Mountain Sculpin (Eastslope populations)

Rocky Mountain Sculpin (Eastslope populations) was assessed by COSEWIC in 2005 and was listed under Schedule 1 of SARA as threatened in 2006. In 2019, COSEWIC reassessed this species and divided it into two DUs: the Missouri River populations and the Saskatchewan-Nelson River populations. Both DUs retained a threatened status. Updating the Rocky Mountain Sculpin to reflect the change in DUs made by COSEWIC brings no change to the status, and the new DUs completely encompass the previous Rocky Mountain Sculpin (Eastslope populations) distribution. It was determined that consultations were not required in this case as the population split has no overall impact on the areas where the species are located nor on the current prohibitions for the two new DUs.

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (Basking Shark Atlantic Population and 14 Other Wildlife Species) under subsection 27(1) of the Species at Risk Act ^{footnote a}.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Order within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Erin Groulx, Director, Species at Risk Program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6 (email: SARA_LEP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca).

Ottawa, September 28, 2026

Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
Janna Rinaldi

Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (Basking Shark Atlantic Population and 14 Other Wildlife Species)

Amendments

1 Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act ^{footnote a} is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Fish”:

• Dace, Nooksack (Rhinichthys cataractae ssp.)
  Naseux de la Nooksack
• Shark, White (Carcharodon carcharias) Atlantic population
  Grand requin blanc population de l’Atlantique

2 Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Fish”:

• Dace, Nooksack (Rhinichthys cataractae)
  Naseux de la Nooksack
• Darter, River (Percina shumardi) Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations
  Dard de rivière populations des Grands Lacs et du haut Saint-Laurent
• Porbeagle (Lamna nasus)
  Maraîche
• Sculpin, Coastrange (Cottus aleuticus) Cultus Lake population
  Chabot de la chaîne côtière population du lac Cultus
• Shark, White (Carcharodon carcharias) Atlantic population
  Requin blanc population de l’Atlantique
• Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata) Eastern Scotian Shelf – Newfoundland population
  Raie tachetée population de l’est du plateau néo-écossais et de Terre-Neuve
• Skate, Winter (Leucoraja ocellata) Gulf of St. Lawrence population
  Raie tachetée population du golfe du Saint-Laurent
• Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus)
  Crapet sac-à-lait

3 Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Fish”:

• Darter, Eastern Sand (Ammocrypta pellucida) Ontario populations
  Dard de sable populations de l’Ontario
• Sculpin, Coastrange (Cottus aleuticus) Cultus population
  Chabot de la chaîne côtière population Cultus
• Sculpin, Rocky Mountain (Cottus sp.) Eastslope populations
  Chabot des montagnes Rocheuses populations du versant est
• Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor)
  Loup tacheté
• Sucker, Mountain (Catostomus platyrhynchus) Milk River populations
  Meunier des montagnes populations de la rivière Milk
• Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Alberta population
  Truite fardée versant de l’Ouest population de l’Alberta

4 Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Fish”:

• Darter, Eastern Sand (Ammocrypta pellucida) Southwestern Ontario population
  Dard de sable population du sud-ouest de l’Ontario
• Sculpin, Rocky Mountain (Cottus sp.) Missouri River populations
  Chabot des montagnes Rocheuses populations de la rivière Missouri
• Sculpin, Rocky Mountain (Cottus sp.) Saskatchewan – Nelson River populations
  Chabot des montagnes Rocheuses populations de la rivière Saskatchewan et du fleuve Nelson
• Stickleback, Little Quarry Lake Benthic Threespine (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
  Épinoche à trois épines benthique du lac Little Quarry
• Stickleback, Little Quarry Lake Limnetic Threespine (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
  Épinoche à trois épines limnétique du lac Little Quarry
• Sucker, Plains (Pantosteus jordani) Missouri population
  Meunier des plaines population de la rivière Missouri
• Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Saskatchewan – Nelson River populations
  Truite fardée versant de l’ouest populations de la rivière Saskatchewan et du fleuve Nelson
• Wolffish, Spotted (Anarhichas minor)
  Loup tacheté

5 Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Molluscs”:

Atlantic Mud-piddock (Barnea truncata)
Pholade tronquée

6 Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Molluscs”:

Mud-piddock, Atlantic (Barnea truncata)
Pholade tronquée

7 Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Mammals”:

Porpoise, Harbour (Phocoena phocoena) Pacific Ocean population
Marsouin commun population de l’océan Pacifique

8 Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Mammals”:

Porpoise, Harbour (Phocoena phocoena vomerina) Pacific Ocean population
Marsouin commun population de l’océan Pacifique

9 Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Fish”:

• Sculpin, Deepwater (Myoxocephalus thompsonii) Great Lakes - Western St. Lawrence populations
  Chabot de profondeur, populations des Grands Lacs - Ouest du Saint-Laurent
• Sculpin, Rocky Mountain (Cottus sp.) Westslope populations
  Chabot des montagnes Rocheuses populations du versant ouest
• Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) British Columbia population
  Truite fardée versant de l’ouest population de la Colombie-Britannique
• Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus)
  Crapet sac-à-lait

10 Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Fish”:

• Dogfish, North Pacific Spiny (Squalus suckleyi)
  Aiguillat commun du Pacifique Nord
• Dogfish, Spiny (Squalus acanthias) Atlantic population
  Aiguillat commun population de l’Atlantique
• Rockfish, Darkblotched (Sebastes crameri)
  Sébaste tacheté
• Sculpin, Deepwater (Myoxocephalus thompsonii) Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations
  Chabot de profondeur populations des Grands Lacs et du haut Saint-Laurent
• Sculpin, Rocky Mountain (Cottus sp.) Pacific populations
  Chabot des montagnes Rocheuses populations du Pacifique
• Shark, Basking (Cetorhinus maximus) Atlantic population
  Pèlerin population de l’Atlantique
• Skate, Smooth (Malacoraja senta) Laurentian – Scotian population
  Raie à queue de velours population du chenal Laurentien et du plateau néo-écossais
• Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Pacific populations
  Truite fardée versant de l’ouest populations du Pacifique

Coming into Force

11 This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain external links
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that communication by email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.