Regulations Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Environmental Response): SOR/2025-233

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 159, Number 25

Registration
SOR/2025-233 November 21, 2025

CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001

P.C. 2025-813 November 21, 2025

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, makes the annexed Regulations Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Environmental Response) under paragraphs 35(1)(d)footnote a, (e)footnote b and (f)footnote b, subsection 182(1)footnote c and paragraphs 244(f)footnote d and (h)footnote e of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 footnote f.

Regulations Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Environmental Response)

Environmental Response Regulations

1 Section 1 of the Environmental Response Regulations footnote 1 is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

designated port
means a port described in Part 1 of Schedule 1. (port dĂ©signĂ©)
enhanced response area
means a marine region described in Part 3 of Schedule 1. (secteur d’intervention intensive)
geographic area
means the area in respect of which a response organization is certified under subsection 169(1) of the Act. (zone gĂ©ographique)
operating environment
means sheltered waters, unsheltered waters or a shoreline. (milieu d’utilisation)
primary area of response
means a marine region described in Part 2 of Schedule 1. (secteur primaire d’intervention)
recovered materials
means oil waste and oily water waste in either liquid or solid form recovered during a response. (matières récupérées)
sheltered waters
means waters where on-water recovery operations for discharged oil can be carried out effectively without significant disruption by environmental conditions. (eaux abritées)
treat
means to take measures, in a manner that has the least detrimental impact possible on the environment, for the purpose of restoring, to the extent possible, an operating environment in which an oil pollution incident has occurred to its condition before the incident. (traiter)
unsheltered waters
means waters where on-water recovery operations for discharged oil may be significantly disrupted by environmental conditions. (eaux ouvertes)

2 Section 6 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Exception

6 Paragraph 168(1)(a) and subparagraph 168(1)(b)(ii) of the Act and the requirement set out in subparagraph 168(1)(b)(iii) of the Act to identify every person who is authorized to implement the arrangement referred to in paragraph 168(1)(a) do not apply in respect of oil handling facilities that are located north of latitude 60° N.

3 Section 9 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Notification of Proposed Change to Operations

Time limit — section 168.01 of the Act

9 For the purposes of section 168.01 of the Act, if the proposed change is to decrease the oil handling facility’s transfer rate, the time to notify the Minister of the proposed change may be of any period of less than 180 days that the Minister may specify.

4 Paragraph 10(k) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5 (1) The portion of subparagraph 11(1)(b)(i) of the Regulations before clause (A) is replaced by the following:

(2) Subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Clause 11(1)(b)(iv)(B) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) The portion of paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(5) Paragraphs 11(1)(f) and (g) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(6) Paragraphs 11(1)(h) and (i) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(7) Subsection 11(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Notification — exercise

(3) The operator must submit a written description of any exercise referred to in paragraph (1)(i), other than a notification exercise, to the Minister at least 30 days before the day on which it conducts the exercise.

6 Subsections 12(1) to (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Annual review

12 (1) The operator of an oil handling facility must, each year,

Review — events

(2) The operator must also review its oil pollution prevention plan and oil pollution emergency plan each time either of the following events occur and, if necessary, update the affected portions of the plans:

Submission of updates — events

(3) If the operator updates its oil pollution prevention plan or oil pollution emergency plan under subsection (2), the operator must submit the up-to-date plan to the Minister no later than 90 days after the day on which the event occurs.

7 The portion of subsection 13(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Procedures

13 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 168(1)(e) of the Act, the operator of an oil handling facility must establish and implement procedures that include

8 Part 3 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Records and Reports

Training record

14 (1) The operator of an oil handling facility must keep a training record for each person who received the training referred to in paragraph 10(k) or 11(1)(h), including the name and position of the person, title of the training and date on which the training was received.

Retention and Ministerial access

(2) The operator must keep the training record for at least five years after the date of the training or, if the training is valid for more than five years, until the date on which the validity period ends and must make the record available to the Minister upon request.

Exercise report

15 The operator of an oil handling facility must submit a report to the Minister within 90 days after the day on which it conducts an exercise that is part of the program referred to in paragraph 11(1)(i) and must include in the report

Oil pollution incident report

16 (1) The operator of an oil handling facility must make a report setting out the causes and contributing factors of every oil pollution incident and the actions that are needed to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Submission of report

(2) The operator must submit the report to the Minister within 90 days after the day on which the oil pollution incident occurs.

9 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 16:

PART 3
Response Organizations

Response Capacity and Response Plan

Quantity of oil

17 For the purposes of subsection 169(1) of the Act, the prescribed quantity of oil is 10,000 tonnes.

Content — response plan

18 (1) A response organization must include the following in its response plan:

Contingency plan

(2) The response plan must take into account any plan issued and made available by the Canadian Coast Guard for the response organization’s geographic area regarding oil pollution incidents.

Content — area response plan

19 A response organization’s response plan for a smaller area referred to in paragraph 18(1)(r) must include

Response Plan Reviews and Updates

Annual review

20 (1) A response organization must, each year,

Review — events

(2) The response organization must also review its response plan each time either of the following events occur and, if necessary, update the affected portions of the plan:

Submission of updates — events

(3) If the response organization updates its response plan under subsection (2), the response organization must submit the up-to-date plan to the Minister no later than 45 days after the day on which the event occurs.

Records

21 (1) A response organization must keep a record of the date and the results of each review of its response plan referred to in section 18, including any updates to the plan.

Retention and submission

(2) The response organization must keep the information in the record for three years after the day on which the information is recorded and must submit the record to the Minister with the response plan updated under section 20 or with the notice referred to in paragraph 20(1)(b).

Procedures, Equipment and Resources

Procedures — general

22 The procedures referred to in paragraph 18(1)(g) must include measures to be taken to

Procedures — daily capacities

23 (1) The procedures referred to in paragraph 18(1)(g) must set out, for an oil pollution incident of 150 tonnes, 1,000 tonnes, 2,500 tonnes and 10,000 tonnes of oil, the following daily capacities:

Interpretation

(2) The following definitions apply in this section.

primary storage
means the equipment used to store recovered materials before the recovered materials are transferred to secondary storage. (entreposage primaire)
secondary storage
means the equipment used to store recovered materials before the recovered materials are transported for final disposal. (entreposage secondaire)

Deployment or delivery

24 (1) The procedures referred to in paragraph 18(1)(g) must provide for

Estimated number of hours

(2) The procedures referred to in paragraph 18(1)(g) must provide the estimated number of hours required for the equipment and resources referred to in subsection (1) to be deployed or delivered to the affected operating environment.

Definition of average travel speed

(3) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(e) and (f), average travel speed means a speed of

Training and Records

Training

25 (1) The training that a response organization must provide under paragraph 171(c) of the Act must

Training record

(2) A response organization must keep a training record for each person referred to in paragraph 18(1)(n), other than a person who may be requested to respond on short notice to an oil pollution incident, including the name and position of the person, title of the training and date on which the training was received.

Retention and Ministerial access

(3) A response organization must keep the training record for a period of at least five years after the date of the training or, if the training is valid for more than five years, until the date on which the validity period ends. The response organization must make the record available to the Minister upon request.

Exercise Program

Type of exercises

26 (1) A response organization’s exercise program must include

Coordination

(2) The exercises referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must be coordinated with the Minister and, if possible, with the persons, entities and vessels that may be involved in an oil pollution incident or that may be requested to respond to such an incident.

Number of exercises

(3) A response organization must conduct at least

Enhanced response area

(4) A response organization must conduct at least one exercise referred to in paragraph (1)(a) that simulates a discharge of a quantity of oil equivalent to that described in any of subparagraphs (3)(a)(i) to (iv) with respect to each enhanced response area, if any. The exercise counts towards one of the eight exercises referred to in paragraph (3)(a) for the primary area of response that is nearest to the enhanced response area in respect of which the exercise is conducted.

More than one primary area of response

(5) If a response organization has more than one primary area of response, the exercise referred to in subparagraph (3)(a)(iv) may be conducted only once in its geographic area.

Exercise program schedule

27 (1) A response organization must establish a schedule by primary area of response that specifies the year in which it plans to conduct each exercise referred to in paragraph 26(1)(a), the quantity of discharged oil that the exercise will simulate and, in the case of an exercise referred to in subsection 26(4), the enhanced response area in respect of which the exercise will take place.

Changes to schedule

(2) A response organization must not make any changes to the schedule without the approval of the Minister.

Request of Minister

28 A response organization must, at the request of the Minister, conduct an exercise referred to in paragraph 26(1)(a) and that exercise counts, for the primary area of response that is nearest to the location in respect of which the exercise is conducted, as an exercise referred to in any of subparagraphs 26(3)(a)(i) to (iv) with respect to the equivalent quantity of oil.

Ministerial involvement

29 A response organization must collaborate with the Minister in the development of each exercise referred to in paragraph 26(1)(a) from the beginning of its development and take into account the Minister’s comments.

Amendment or addition of objectives

30 A response organization must amend any objective of or add an objective to an exercise at the request of the Minister.

Stakeholder involvement

31 A response organization must invite local Indigenous groups and other local stakeholders to participate in the exercises referred to in paragraph 26(1)(a).

Exercise report

32 A response organization must submit a report to the Minister within 45 days after the day on which it conducts an exercise and must include in the report

Other Requirements

Evidence

33 A response organization must submit to the Minister upon request and in the form and manner specified by the Minister, any evidence, including demonstrations, that the Minister determines is necessary to establish that the response organization is capable of responding to an oil pollution incident of up to 10,000 tonnes of oil in an operating environment in its geographic area.

Notice

34 A response organization must notify the Minister as soon as feasible after it responds to an oil pollution incident or to any other incident that could affect its ability to respond to an oil pollution incident.

Written confirmation — vessels

35 (1) A response organization must obtain written confirmation from the owner or operator of a vessel referred to in paragraph 18(1)(f), and submit the confirmation to the Minister upon request, that the vessel is

Operating hours — vessels

(2) A response organization must obtain from the owner or operator of each vessel referred to in paragraph 18(1)(f) a written statement setting out that vessel’s operating hours.

Equipment at designated port

36 The equipment referred to in paragraph 18(1)(i) with respect to a designated port must be kept at that designated port, unless the Minister permits its removal.

Cancellation of certification

37 (1) For the purposes of subsection 169(6) of the Act, the Minister may cancel a response organization’s certificate of designation beginning on the day on which the response organization

Suspension or cancellation of certification

(2) For the purposes of subsection 169(6) of the Act, the Minister may suspend or cancel a response organization’s certificate of designation if the Minister considers that the response organization is not compliant with the requirements that apply to it under the Act or if the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so.

Request to renew certification

38 A response organization must submit any application to renew its certificate to the Minister at least 90 days before the day on which the current certificate of designation expires.

Fees — notice

39 For the purposes of subsection 170(2) of the Act, a response organization or a qualified person must publish the fees that they propose to charge in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

10 The Regulations are amended by adding, after section 39, the Schedules 1 and 2 set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

Response Organizations Regulations

11 The Response Organizations Regulations footnote 2 are repealed.

Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations

12 Item 2 of Part 14 of the schedule to the Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations footnote 3 is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision of the Environmental Response Regulations

Column 2

Range of Penalties ($)

Column 3

Separate Violation for Each Day
2 Paragraph 12(1)(a) 1,300 to 100,000  
2.1 Paragraph 12(1)(b) 260 to 10,000  
13 Part 14 of the schedule to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 5:
Item

Column 1

Provision of the Environmental Response Regulations

Column 2

Range of Penalties ($)

Column 3

Separate Violation for Each Day
6 Paragraph 20(1)(a) 1,300 to 100,000  
7 Paragraph 20(1)(b) 260 to 10,000  
8 Subsection 20(2) 1,300 to 100,000  
9 Subsection 20(3) 260 to 10,000  
10 Subsection 21(1) 260 to 10,000  
11 Subsection 21(2) 260 to 10,000  
12 Section 34 1,300 to 100,000  

Coming into Force

14 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Sections 1, 9 to 11 and 13 come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

SCHEDULE

(Section 10)

SCHEDULE 1

(Section 1)

Designated Ports, Primary Areas of Response and Enhanced Response Areas

PART 1

Designated Ports
Item

Column 1

Port

Column 2

Description
1 Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador All the waters of Holyrood Bay south of a line drawn from the high-water mark at the northern extremity of Harbour Main Point (47°26′58″ N, 53°08′26″ W) in a 070°00′ direction (True) to the high-water mark on the opposite shore
2 Come By Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador All the waters of Placentia Bay north of a line drawn from a point on the high-water mark at approximately 47°41′14″ N, 53°58′12″ W in a 276°00′ direction (True) to Long Island Point Light; thence in a 273°00′ direction (True) to James Point; thence along the foreshore on the high-water mark to Tobins Point all around Bar Haven Bay; thence to Carroll Point; thence in a 320°00′ direction (True) to a point on the high-water mark on the mainland at approximately 47°45′00″ N, 54°14′42″ W
3 Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia All the waters of the Strait of Canso eastward of the centre line of the channel, from a point at 45°38′41″ N, 61°25′07″ W southward to 45°32′31″ N, 61°17′42″ W, midway between Bear Head and Melford Point
4 Halifax,
Nova Scotia		 All the waters of Halifax Harbour north of a line drawn between 44°36.5′ N, 63°33.8′ W and 44°37.8′ N, 63°31.6′ W
5 Saint John,
New Brunswick		 All the waters of Saint John Harbour bounded by a line from Cape Spencer Light running south to 45°08.1′ N, then west to Little Musquash Cove (66°17.4′ W)
6 Sept-ĂŽles, Quebec All the waters bounded by a line drawn from the following points: 50°12.8′ N, 66°13.5′ W to 50°08.1′ N, 66°16.1′ W to 50°04.4′ N, 66°23.1′ W to 50°08.5′ N, 66°36.6′ W
7 QuĂ©bec, Quebec All the waters between the eastern boundary consisting of a line drawn from 46°53′09″ N, 71°08′36″ W through ĂŽle d’OrlĂ©ans to a point at 46°49′42″ N, 71°07′50″ W and the western boundary of a line drawn from 46°44′51″ N, 71°20′36″ W to a point at 46°43′38″ N, 71°20′06″ W
8 MontrĂ©al, Quebec All the waters between the eastern boundary consisting of a line drawn from a point on the shore at 46°01.0′ N, 73°11.1′ W to a point at 46°00.8′ N, 73°09.85′ W on the opposite shore and the western boundary of a line drawn from 45°24.04 N, 73°31.69′ W to a point at 45°41.62′ N, 73°35.33′ W on the opposite shore
9 Sarnia, Ontario All the Canadian waters of the St. Clair River with the northern boundary line coinciding with the south face of the Blue Water Bridge connecting Point Edward, Ontario with Port Huron, Michigan, United States and the southern boundary line drawn so as to include all of its several outlets into Lake St. Clair, including any dredged channels
10 Vancouver, British Columbia All the Canadian waters of Boundary Bay bounded by a line drawn due west along the Canada-United States border to a point at 123°19.3′ W, thence north to a point at 49°14′ N, 123°19.3′ W, thence to a point at 49°15.5′ N, 123°17′ W; and the waters of Burrard Inlet east of a line drawn from Point Atkinson Light to Point Grey

PART 2

Primary Areas of Response
Item

Column 1

Marine Region

Column 2

Description
1 Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador All the waters between an easterly arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 47°26′58″ N, 53°08′26″ W and the contiguous land mass
2 Come By Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador All the waters of Placentia Bay north of a line drawn from Tides Cove Point Light to Cape St. Mary’s Light; all the waters of Fortune Bay north of a line drawn from St. Jacques Island Light to Garnish Light; and all the waters of St. Mary’s Bay north of a line drawn from La Haye Point Light to Branch West Breakwater Light
3 Point Tupper, Nova Scotia All the waters between an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about Bear Head Light (45°33′ N, 61°17′ W) but not extending north of the Canso Causeway into St. Georges Bay and the contiguous land mass
4 Halifax, Nova Scotia All the waters of the south coast of Nova Scotia within an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 44°37.2′ N, 63°32.75′ W
5 Saint John, New Brunswick All the Canadian waters between the western boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 45°08′03″ N, 66°17′12″ W and the eastern boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about a point centred on Cape Spencer Light
6 Sept-ĂŽles, Quebec All the waters bounded by a line drawn from a point on the shore at 49°24.8′ N, 67°17.5′ W to the point 49°14′ N, 66°23.1′ W, to the point 49°22′ N, 65°40′ W, to the point 49°40′ N, 65°12′ W to the point 50°16.3′ N, 64°55.7′ W on the shore and by the contiguous land mass
7 QuĂ©bec, Quebec All the waters between the upstream boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 46°44.8′ N, 71°20.56′ W and the downstream boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 46°53.12′ N, 71°08.1′ W
8 MontrĂ©al, Quebec All the waters between the upstream boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 45°28.5′ N, 73°32.62′ W and the downstream boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 46°00.98′ N, 73°11.08′ W
9 Sarnia, Ontario All the Canadian waters between a line in Lake Huron drawn from the point 43°48.7′ N, 82°10.3′ W on the Canada-United States border to the point 43°39.4′ N, 81°43.25′ W on the shore and a line in Lake Erie drawn from the point 41°53.8′ N, 81°55.7′ W on the Canada-United States border to the point 42°34.4′ N, 81°31′ W on the shore
10 Vancouver, British Columbia All the Canadian waters between the northwestern boundary consisting of a line drawn from the point 49°46.5′ N, 124°20.5′ W on the mainland, through Texada Island, to the point 49°22.5′ N, 124°32.4′ W on the shore of Vancouver Island and the southern boundary consisting of a line running eastward along the 48°25′ N parallel from Victoria to the Canada-United States border, including the waters of Jervis Inlet up to a line drawn from the point 49°59.98′ N, 123°59.97′ W to the point 49°59.94′ N, 123°56.78′ W

PART 3

Enhanced Response Areas
Item Column 1

Marine Region		 Column 2

Description
1 Cabot Strait All the waters within a circle having a 50 nautical mile radius, about a point midway between Cape North, Nova Scotia, and Cape Ray, Newfoundland and Labrador
2 Northumberland Strait All the waters between the western boundary consisting of a line drawn from West Point, Prince Edward Island, to Bouctouche, New Brunswick, and the eastern boundary consisting of a line running from Cape Bear, Prince Edward Island, to Trenton, Nova Scotia
3 Niagara All the Canadian waters, in Lake Erie, east of a line drawn from Long Point Light (42°32.8′ N, 80°02.6′ W), then southeasterly 150°00′ (True) to intersect the Canada-United States border at 42°26.4′ N, 79°58.0′ W, then easterly along the Canada-United States border to include the Niagara River; and all the Canadian waters, in Lake Ontario, west of a line drawn from Fort Mississauga National Historic Site of Canada at the mouth of the Niagara River (43Âş15.7′ N, 79°04.6′ W) to follow the Canada-United States border to a position where the border changes from a northerly direction to an easterly direction (43°26.1′ N, 79°12.1′ W), then due north to the Canadian shoreline at 43°44.2′ N, 79°12.1′ W
4 Juan de Fuca Strait All the Canadian waters between the western boundary consisting of a line drawn from Carmanah Point on Vancouver Island to Cape Flattery, Washington, United States, and the eastern boundary consisting of a line running eastward along the 48°25′ N parallel from Victoria to the Canada-United States border

SCHEDULE 2

(Paragraphs 18(1)(i) and 23(1)(a) and (b))

Estimate — Allocation of Oil During an Oil Pollution Incident

PART 1

Designated Ports
Item

Column 1

Port

Column 2

Shoreline (% of oil)

Column 3

Sheltered Waters (% of oil)

Column 4

Unsheltered Waters (% of oil)
1 Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador 50 50 0
2 Come By Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador 50 50 0
3 Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia 50 50 0
4 Halifax, Nova Scotia 50 50 0
5 Saint John, New Brunswick 50 50 0
6 Sept-ĂŽles, Quebec 50 50 0
7 Québec, Quebec 50 50 0
8 Montréal, Quebec 50 50 0
9 Sarnia, Ontario 50 50 0
10 Vancouver, British Columbia 50 50 0

PART 2

Primary Areas of Response
Item

Column 1

Marine Region

Column 2

Shoreline (% of oil)

Column 3

Sheltered Waters (% of oil)

Column 4

Unsheltered Waters (% of oil)
1 Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador 40 40 20
2 Come By Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador 40 40 20
3 Point Tupper, Nova Scotia 40 40 20
4 Halifax, Nova Scotia 40 30 30
5 Saint John, New Brunswick 40 40 20
6 Sept-ĂŽles, Quebec 45 30 25
7 Québec, Quebec 60 30 10
8 Montréal, Quebec 70 30 0
9 Sarnia, Ontario 50 40 10
10 Vancouver, British Columbia 40 40 20

PART 3

Enhanced Response Areas
Item

Column 1

Marine Region

Column 2

Description
1 Cabot Strait All the waters within a circle having a 50 nautical mile radius, about a point midway between Cape North, Nova Scotia, and Cape Ray, Newfoundland and Labrador
2 Northumberland Strait All the waters between the western boundary consisting of a line drawn from West Point, Prince Edward Island, to Bouctouche, New Brunswick, and the eastern boundary consisting of a line running from Cape Bear, Prince Edward Island, to Trenton, Nova Scotia
3 Niagara All the Canadian waters, in Lake Erie, east of a line drawn from Long Point Light (42°32.8′ N, 80°02.6′ W), then southeasterly 150°00′ (True) to intersect the Canada-United States border at 42°26.4′ N, 79°58.0′ W, then easterly along the Canada-United States border to include the Niagara River; and all the Canadian waters, in Lake Ontario, west of a line drawn from Fort Mississauga National Historic Site of Canada at the mouth of the Niagara River (43Âş15.7′ N, 79°04.6′ W) to follow the Canada-United States border to a position where the border changes from a northerly direction to an easterly direction (43°26.1′ N, 79°12.1′ W), then due north to the Canadian shoreline at 43°44.2′ N, 79°12.1′ W
4 Juan de Fuca Strait All the Canadian waters between the western boundary consisting of a line drawn from Carmanah Point on Vancouver Island to Cape Flattery, Washington, United States, and the eastern boundary consisting of a line running eastward along the 48°25′ N parallel from Victoria to the Canada-United States border

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: Regulations outline how we prepare for and respond to potential oil spills. Currently, there are gaps in both the Response Organizations Regulations (ROR) and the Environmental Response Regulations (ERR), which could impact Canada’s readiness to respond to marine oil spills.

The ROR, which detail the oil spill preparedness and certification requirements for Transport Canada (TC)-certified response organizations (ROs), have not been updated since they were first introduced in 1995. Consequently, the regulatory framework is out of date and does not reflect how response practices have evolved, and does not address public expectations that response plans be tailored to local conditions along Canada’s coasts.

Since the ERR were implemented in 2019, various gaps and inconsistencies have been identified in the requirements for oil handling facility (OHF) operators that have caused confusion among some stakeholders and created challenges in enforcing certain provisions.

Description: The Regulations Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Environmental Response) [the Regulations] will establish new requirements and amend existing requirements for TC-certified ROs and OHF operators and consolidate them within the ERR. Specifically, the Regulations will clarify and enhance RO preparedness requirements, as well as ensure that ROs have the capacity to respond more effectively to oil pollution incidents up to 10 000 tonnes. The Regulations will also revise requirements to address various gaps that TC has identified in the ERR.

The ROR will be repealed on the first anniversary of the Regulations’ publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The Regulations will also amend the Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations to include new requirements for plan review, reporting and notification by ROs. These new requirements will now be considered violations subject to administrative monetary penalties (AMPs). As many RO requirements are already subject to AMPS, this amendment is meant to ensure consistency in the enforcement of RO requirements.

Rationale: The volume of oil being transported in Canadian waters as cargo and fuel is expected to continue to grow over the coming years, in line with increasing commercial vessel traffic and as a result of port and energy projects across the country. This rising volume of traffic emphasizes the importance of a robust oil pollution preparedness and response regime to protect Canadian waters from the impacts of ship-source oil spills.

The Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (CSA 2001) requires OHF operators and vessels of certain gross tonnage (“prescribed vessels”) to have plans in place to immediately respond to an oil spill and to have arrangements for oil spill response services with TC-certified ROs to operate in Canadian waters south of 60°N. While the CSA 2001 sets the general rules regarding oil spill preparedness for OHF operators and ROs, specific requirements are prescribed in regulation. Requirements for OHF operators are established under the ERR, and requirements for ROs are established under the ROR. Therefore, in order to modify the oil spill preparedness requirements for OHF operators and ROs, amendments must be made to these regulations.

The Regulations are estimated to result in a net cost impact of $1.21 million between 2025 and 2035 (present value in 2023 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2025 at a 7% discount rate). The Regulations are estimated to result in a cost of $1.69 million over the analytical time frame, of which $167,841 is expected to be incurred by ROs, $1.25 million by OHF operators and $275,819 by the Government of Canada. In addition, the Regulations are estimated to result in a total benefit of $480,544 over the analytical time frame. This cost saving is expected to be incurred by OHF operators ($435,781) and the Government of Canada ($44,763).footnote 4 The Regulations are also expected to result in qualitative benefits, such as aligning requirements with best practices, improving compliance monitoring, supporting environmental protection and a potential enhancement of response time. These qualitative benefits are further discussed in the “Regulatory analysis” section.

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the Regulations will impact small businesses. It is estimated that a total incremental cost of $36,088 or an annualized cost of $2,249 per business will be incurred by small businesses between 2025 and 2035.

The one-for-one rule applies, since there will be a net incremental decrease in administrative burden on business, and an existing regulatory title is repealed. The Regulations will repeal the ROR and their content will be updated and amalgamated into the ERR. As a result, a net of one title out is counted under the rule. It is estimated that the annualized administrative burden decrease will be $6,714 or an annualized administrative burden cost saving of $29.45 per business (present value in 2012 Canadian dollars, discounted to the year 2012 with a 7% discount rate for a 10-year period between 2025 and 2034).

Issues

Canada’s ship-source oil pollution and preparedness regulations outline how Canada prepares for and responds to potential oil spills. A ship-source oil spill is where oil has been discharged from a vessel or during the process of loading or unloading oil to or from a vessel. Currently, there are gaps in both the Response Organizations Regulations (ROR) and the Environmental Response Regulations (ERR), which could impact Canada’s readiness to respond to marine oil spills.

The ROR, which detail the oil spill preparedness and certification requirements for Transport Canada (TC)-certified response organizations (ROs), have not been updated since they were first introduced in 1995. Consequently, the regulatory framework is out of date and does not reflect how response practices have evolved. Furthermore, through public engagement since 2018, coastal and Indigenous communities and other jurisdictions have expressed interest in being more involved in response activities and have called for response plans and requirements to better account for local conditions.

Response organizations have voluntarily established and maintained response plans and resource capacities that go beyond what is required in regulation to ensure effective oil spill response preparedness. For instance, many ROs have adopted the best practice of creating separate area response plans (ARPs) that address some of the specific local characteristics of smaller geographic areas in their region, such as unique geographical conditions and shipping traffic. Given that these plans are not formally required, they are not done in a comprehensive or consistent manner. For example, plans can vary based on the factors that an RO chooses. Putting best practices such as the development of these area plans into regulation would help ensure that they are implemented on a consistent and comprehensive basis across all ROs and the geographical areas under their responsibility.

As the transportation of oil and vessel traffic continue to increase across Canadian waters, it is vital that the ship-source oil pollution prevention and response regime is updated to ensure that Canada is well positioned to respond to and mitigate the potential impacts of ship-source oil spills.

Additionally, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (CSA 2001) requires that ROs publish their fees in the “prescribed” manner. “Prescribed” is defined in the CSA 2001 as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council. However, the ROR do not describe what the prescribed manner is. Therefore, amendments are needed to clearly outline the publication process and provide clarity for ROs and their clients.

Since the ERR were implemented in 2019, various gaps and inconsistencies have been identified in the requirements for oil handling facility (OHF) operators that have caused confusion among some stakeholders and created challenges in enforcing certain provisions. For instance, while the ERR require OHF operators to develop an exercise program to evaluate the effectiveness of their oil pollution emergency plans, the ERR do not explicitly require operators to carry out these exercises. While most OHF operators conduct exercises, some have maintained that the implementation of the exercise program is voluntary. The Regulations will strengthen the ability of TC inspectors to enforce the implementation of these programs to help ensure an adequate level of oil pollution incident preparedness.

In addition, the ERR establish different oil spill response procedure requirements for operators north and south of 60°N. Since there are no ROs operating north of 60°N, OHF operators in that region must have procedures in place to respond to a spill up to the total amount of oil that can be transferred at their facilities, to a maximum of 10 000 tonnes. Operators south of 60°N are not required to have these procedures, since they must have an arrangement with an RO, but must instead have procedures in place to respond to minimum oil spill scenarios based on the classification of their facilities. For instance, for OHFs that can transfer up to 150 m3 of oil per hour, the operator must have the necessary procedures to respond to a spill of up to 1 m3. For OHFs that can transfer more than 2 000 m3 per hour, the operator must have the procedures to respond to a spill of up to 50 m3. The ERR also require OHF operators to have available for immediate use a minimum amount of response equipment to respond to the oil spill scenarios for their classification. Since operators north of 60°N are not required to have procedures for these minimum oil spill scenarios, there has been uncertainty over whether they must also comply with the minimum equipment requirements. This uncertainty can mean that OHF operators north of 60°N may not have a sufficient amount of response equipment on-site and would need to rely on contractors to provide equipment in the event of a spill, potentially delaying response operations.

Amendments are required to the ERR to clarify and support a consistent application of the requirements for OHF operators to ensure that they are effectively prepared to respond to oil pollution incidents at their facilities.

Background

Over the last 10 years, cargo and container traffic in Canadian waters has increased by over 10% and there are approximately 20 000 oil tanker movements off Canadian coasts each year, with 85% of this traffic concentrated on the Atlantic coast. The volume of oil moving within Canada’s waters as cargo and fuel for large vessels is expected to rise over the coming years in large part due to port and energy projects across the country. For instance, the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project operating at full capacity alone is forecast to increase the number of oil tankers served annually at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, British Columbia, from 60 to 170. The ContrecĹ“ur Terminal Expansion Project in Montreal, Quebec is expected to increase the Port of Montreal’s container capacity by 60% and is forecast to increase container traffic along the St. Lawrence River and Atlantic coast. Various other projects in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada are anticipated to stimulate commercial vessel traffic along the East Coast, the St. Lawrence River, and the Great Lakes. The increasing marine traffic in Canadian waters underscores the importance of having a robust oil pollution preparedness and response regime to quickly and effectively respond to marine oil pollution incidents.

In Canada, and in accordance with international maritime conventions and standards, the polluter, such as an OHF operator or a “prescribed vessel,” is responsible for preparing for and responding to a ship-source oil pollution incident. An OHF is any facility that is used in the loading or unloading of oil to or from a vessel. Prescribed vessels include

The CSA 2001 is the principal legislation governing ship-source oil pollution preparedness in Canada. It requires that OHF operators and prescribed vessels have plans in place to immediately respond to an oil spill. It also requires that OHF operators and prescribed vessels have arrangements for oil spill response services with an RO to operate in Canadian waters. Given that there are no ROs operating north of 60°N, OHF operators and prescribed vessels are only required to have an arrangement with an RO to operate in Canadian waters south of 60°N. The CSA 2001 requires OHF operators and ROs to have plans in place to respond to ship-source oil spills, with the details of what is to be included in these plans to be prescribed in regulation.

The ERR outline the requirements for how OHF operators are to prepare to prevent and respond to oil pollution incidents at their facilities. Specifically, OHF operators must have an oil pollution prevention plan and an oil pollution emergency plan that detail, among other matters, the procedures and equipment necessary to prevent and immediately respond to an oil spill when transferring oil to or from a vessel. They also include a description of the personnel responsible for implementing these plans and the training provided to ensure that they are able to fulfill their responsibilities. The ERR also require that OHF operators establish an exercise program to evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects of their emergency plans.

Prescribed vessels are also required to have a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan (SOPEP) describing procedures their crew are to undertake to immediately contain a potential spill using on-board equipment. The requirements related to the SOPEP are covered within the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations and are outside the scope of these Regulations.

Response organizations are private organizations that specialize in oil spill response. There are currently four ROs in Canada, each managing a different geographical region. Together, they cover all Canadian waters south of 60°N:

The four ROs are certified by TC every three years according to the requirements set out in the ROR and Response Organizations Standards (PDF) to have the capacity to respond to ship-source oil spills of up to 10 000 tonnes. The 10 000-tonne threshold is not intended to indicate the largest spill size to which ROs are able to respond, but to set a benchmark for planning and preparedness purposes. Specifically, ROs must have the planning, resources and procedures in place to be prepared to recover 10 000 tonnes within a 10-day period. The capacity determination does not mean that an RO’s resources will be exhausted beyond the recovery of 10 000 tonnes of oil. Rather the planning requirements seek to ensure that ROs have a response structure that meets minimum capacity requirements in place throughout their geographical area of response (GAR) that is ready to be deployed in the event of any spill. ROs also have mutual aid agreements with other Canadian ROs and American oil spill removal organizations to obtain additional resources as needed. The ROs were last certified in 2022 and will be certified again in late 2025.

The ROR require ROs to establish a detailed response plan demonstrating that they have a minimum level of equipment, resources, and procedures in place to effectively respond to ship-source oil pollution incidents in their geographical areas of responsibility. The ROR also require ROs to describe the training of their personnel and other individuals that may be involved in their response plans, and to account for areas of environmental and socio-economic sensitivity within their geographical area when developing response procedures and plans. Environmental and socio-economically sensitive areas can include sites like endangered species’ habitats, commercial fisheries, sites of Indigenous cultural significance, or sites with important infrastructure like small craft harbours. Response organizations are also required to establish and implement an exercise program every three years to evaluate the effectiveness of their response plans.

The ROR and Response Organizations Standards also require ROs to have procedures in place to be prepared to respond to oil spills within specified time standards, based on the size of the spill and whether it is located in a designated port, primary area of response (PAR), enhanced response area (ERA) or another area within its GAR, the area in which an RO is certified to provide oil spill response services. Designated ports are identified by TC based on the volume of oil transported and shipping traffic at the port. Primary areas of response are generally Canadian waters within a 50 nautical mile radius of a designated port. Enhanced response areas are part of Canadian waters in which stricter time standards apply due to issues such as high volumes of shipping traffic. With respect to the time standards, an RO must demonstrate that it is prepared to deploy the necessary equipment and personnel to respond to a spill of 150 tonnes and 1 000 tonnes at a designated port within 6 hours and 12 hours, respectively. The RO must also demonstrate that it is prepared to deliver the necessary equipment to the spill site to respond to a spill of up to 2 500 tonnes or up to 10 000 tonnes in a PAR or an ERA within 18 hours and 72 hours, respectively. For spills in any other region of an RO’s GAR, the RO must be prepared to deliver the equipment to the location within the same time standards as those for a PAR and ERA, plus the travel time it would take to get there. The travel time is calculated based on an average speed of 6 knots by sea, 100 knots by air, and 65 km/hour by land. The difference in deploying and delivering equipment is that, for deployment, the equipment must be at the spill site ready to begin recovery operations, whereas for delivery, the equipment must only be brought to the location.

It is important to note that the ROR and the Response Organizations Standards (PDF) are focused on preparedness and seek to ensure that ROs have a sufficient level of resources positioned throughout their GAR so that they would be able to respond to an oil pollution incident within the timelines. An emphasis is placed on preparedness to deploy or deliver equipment instead of on actual response operations timelines, as there is a range of external factors beyond an RO’s control that can impact its response time, such as bad weather, and sea and safety conditions preventing the RO personnel from reaching or operating at the spill site. Therefore, while an RO must have the planning and procedures in place to be prepared to deploy or deliver their equipment to the site within the time standards, its actual response times may vary due to the specific and often unique spill conditions.

Transport Canada is undertaking the second phase of a two-phased approach to update the ship-source oil pollution incident preparedness and response framework. The first phase consisted of updating the requirements for OHF operators to improve the effectiveness of oil spill preparedness and response in the transfer of oil to and from vessels. This step was completed with the introduction of the ERR in 2019.

The second phase of this approach will update the requirements for ROs and incorporate them into the ERR to establish one set of regulations for ship-source oil spill prevention and response. TC is also taking the opportunity to address various gaps and inconsistencies that have been identified in the ERR since they were implemented.

Objective

The objective of the Regulations Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Environmental Response) [the Regulations] is to enhance marine safety and environmental protection by strengthening Canada’s ship-source oil spill preparedness regulations governing the TC-certified ROs and OHF operators. The Regulations aim to

Description

The Regulations will establish new requirements and amend existing requirements for ROs and OHF operators and consolidate them within the ERR. The ROR will be consequently repealed on the first anniversary of the day on which the Regulations come into force.

In addition to the Regulations, TC has updated the Environmental Response Standards (PDF), a TC-published document that provides guidance and technical advice on the ERR. Updates to this document provide technical advice and examples to guide regulated parties as they seek to implement the Regulations. Specific sections of the Environmental Response Standards will be incorporated by reference into the Regulations, making those sections mandatory, as discussed below.

Amendments for ROs

The amendments related to ROs seek to clarify and enhance their preparedness requirements and ensure that ROs have sufficient capacity to respond to oil pollution incidents up to 10 000 tonnes. The amendments fall within the following categories.

Inserting existing standards into Regulations

The ROR incorporate by reference on an ambulatory basis the Response Organizations Standards, which include response time standards; minimum shoreline recovery targets treating 500 m per day; time frames for completing on-water recovery operations; temporary storage capacity requirements; and the list of designated ports, PARs and ERAs. This means that the standards are mandatory and can be revised from time to time without amending the Regulations.

Given that these standards require ROs to include various procedures in their response plans similar to other requirements in the ROR, the standards will be added directly to the Regulations to clarify what is required to be included in an RO’s response plan. This approach is consistent with TC’s effort to consolidate the ship-source oil pollution preparedness requirements into a single set of regulations. The Response Organizations Standards will therefore be discontinued. Guidance information on the Regulations for ROs is included in the Environmental Response Standards.

Sub-regional ARPs

The Regulations will ensure that an RO’s response plan takes into account more regional and localized conditions and risks throughout its geographical area. Under the ROR, ROs must include in their response plans descriptions of treatment and recovery procedures and equipment that would be generally implemented when responding to an oil spill in their GARs. Their response plans must also have descriptions of the measures they would use to protect and treat environmentally sensitive and socio-economically significant areas. The Regulations will require ROs to include in their plan a description of how they subdivide their geographical area into smaller sub-regional areas and demonstrate in subregional ARPs that they have the necessary procedures and the appropriate personnel, equipment, and resources to respond to all types of oil spills in these areas. For example, the ARPs will list the specific contractors and vessels that may be requested to respond within that area, as well as describe the geographic boundaries, operating environments, nature of vessel traffic (e.g. types of vessels operating in the area), and the types and quantity of oil transported in each sub-region. They will also describe environmental sensitivities and socio-economic significant areas within each sub-region, including shoreline types, and the measures to be taken for their treatment.

Rating equipment capacity

The Regulations will require ROs to use a calculation formula in their response plans to demonstrate the rated capacity of their equipment to recover and temporarily store oil from a spill site. Currently, as a best practice, ROs use a formula found in guidance material to calculate the amount of oil their equipment can clean up from a spill site to demonstrate that they have enough equipment to respond to a spill of up to 10 000 tonnes. To provide greater clarity and transparency regarding how an RO’s equipment capacity is assessed, this formula is now included in the Environmental Response Standards and will be incorporated by reference into the Regulations.

The formula is highly technical and takes into consideration general equipment and manufacturer specifications. As technology advances and response equipment becomes more efficient, it will be important to be able to adjust the formula quickly to take into account these enhancements. Incorporating by reference the formula from the Environmental Response Standards into the Regulations will make it mandatory, while enabling TC to provide the necessary technical guidance for how it is to be used. Incorporating it by reference will also alleviate the need to update the Regulations in cases where TC needs to make changes to the formula in the future. For transparency, this document will be made publicly available on TC’s website when the new requirements for ROs come into force.

Should TC determine that changes to the formula are required, TC would consult ROs, other stakeholders, and Indigenous groups before making any revisions. The revised document will be posted on TC’s website and shared directly with regulated parties by email.

Listing contractors and additional resources

The Regulations will require ROs to list in their response plans the contractors and third-party vessels they use to provide services and equipment to implement their response operations. Response organizations will also need to obtain written confirmation from the third-party vessel owners or operators that they are capable of performing the tasks for which they are assigned and are compliant with requirements related to those tasks. These written confirmations will not need to be included in the response plan but must be made available to the Minister upon request. In addition, an RO’s response plan must include a declaration attesting that the resources and equipment covered in its response plan are available and that the ROs are capable of implementing the procedures in the plan. This will help ensure that these resources are appropriately accounted for and verified in the ROs’ response plans.

Time standards

To ensure ROs are well prepared to respond to oil spills as soon as practicable, the Regulations will establish a new activation time standard for planning purposes. Currently, ROs have procedures and resources to activate their response plans, but the timelines to complete the activation process vary. Under the Regulations, ROs will need to demonstrate that they have the planning and procedures in place to activate their response plans within two hours of being requested to respond to an oil spill incident, regardless of the size or location of the spill. Activating a response plan includes measures such as mobilizing personnel and equipment to be transported to the site. This amendment will not adjust the overall time frames under which an RO must be prepared to deploy or deliver equipment to the spill site under the existing time standards. For example, an RO will still need to have the planning and procedures in place to be prepared to deploy the necessary equipment to a 150-tonne spill at a designated port within 6 hours of being activated to respond. However, the RO will need to be prepared to complete the activation of its response plan within the first 2 hours of the 6-hour period. This will provide greater assurance that an RO takes immediate steps to implement its response plan, especially in cases where it must be prepared to deliver equipment to a spill site within 72 hours. As noted above, these time standards are intended for planning purposes and not performance measures. The response to a real event will be influenced by environmental and other factors, such as poor weather conditions that can affect response times.

The time standards will remain in place, but as noted above, will be moved from the Response Organizations Standards and inserted directly into the ERR, along with the new activation time standard.

Exercise program

The Regulations will also expand and formalize the exercise program requirements for ROs. The ROR require ROs to establish and implement an exercise program to evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects of their response plans within three years of being certified (i.e. the certification period). However, they do not specifically indicate the type or number of exercises that need to be done. In general, ROs conduct notification exercises where they practise and evaluate their ability to notify all parties involved with implementing their response plan, as well as oil spill simulation exercises where they practice certain elements of their response plans through undertaking oil spill scenarios. The simulation exercises are also used to demonstrate and assess an RO’s response equipment, procedures, and strategies. The Regulations will set the minimum number and type of exercises that must be done in an RO’s geographical area. Specifically, an RO will be required to complete

Because ROs are certified to respond to spills of up to 10 000 tonnes and manage a range of situations in different locations, a wide variety of exercises are necessary to adequately assess the effectiveness of their response plans. Spills are more likely around a PAR due to the volume of oil transferred and the volume of shipping traffic; therefore, it is imperative for ROs to be especially well practised and complete more exercises in these areas.

The oil spill simulation exercises will need to involve exercises according to the four oil quantities included in the response time standards discussed in the “Background” section above: 150 tonnes, 1 000 tonnes, 2 500 tonnes and 10 000 tonnes. Within their total of eight exercises, ROs will need to include a scenario for responding to 80% of each oil spill size, namely

Response organizations will also have to conduct one simulation exercise of a spill of at least 8 000 tonnes in their GAR, which would count as one of the eight required exercises for the PAR nearest in proximity to where the exercise is situated.

Response organizations will only be required to exercise at 80% of the spill size captured under the response time standards, as this will effectively assess their ability to respond to oil spills of these sizes without being too burdensome for the ROs to complete. The measures involved in activating and deploying equipment for a spill of 2 000 tonnes, for example, would not be significantly different from those for a spill of 2 500 tonnes and would be sufficient to assess the RO’s capability of responding to spills within this range. ROs will also need to conduct at least one exercise simulating one of the oil spill quantities listed above, in each ERA in an RO’s GAR. The ERA exercise will count towards one of the eight required exercises for the nearest PAR.

The Regulations will further include a new provision giving the Minister of Transport the authority to require an RO to undertake an unannounced exercise to evaluate any aspect of the RO’s response plan. The standard exercises ROs complete as part of their exercise programs are preplanned and staff, contractors, and other potential participants are notified in advance. By contrast, for unannounced exercises, an RO’s personnel will be unaware of the date, time, and scenario until the start of the exercise to enable TC inspectors to assess the RO’s readiness to implement certain elements of the response plan from a different perspective than a preplanned exercise. However, TC will give select RO management advance notice to ensure that the exercise will not significantly disrupt the RO’s regular operations. These types of exercises will generally only involve a simulation of a 150-tonne or 1 000-tonne spill and they will count towards one of the eight simulation exercises in the RO’s PAR and thus will not increase the total number of exercises an RO must do per certification period. TC will not begin implementing unannounced exercises until after the ROs have been recertified following the coming into force of the Regulations to provide TC sufficient time to develop unannounced exercises.

The rest of the required oil spill simulation exercises per PAR must include a scenario of a spill of at least 120 tonnes, but can take place within or outside of the PAR, which will provide ROs the flexibility to simulate a greater range of scenarios and in remote locations or other areas where there may be a significant volume of oil transported that is not covered by a PAR or ERA.

The Regulations will require ROs to collaborate with the Minister of Transport when developing an oil spill simulation exercise by seeking the Minister’s input on the exercise. This could involve meeting with the Minister of Transport-delegated TC officials early in the development phase to discuss the objectives, nature, and time frames of the exercise. ROs will need to demonstrate that they have addressed any comments made by TC (on behalf of the Minister) during these planning sessions or when conducting exercises. The Regulations will also provide the Minister of Transport with the authority to add objectives to an RO’s oil spill simulation exercises and unannounced exercises. This authority will allow TC to assess specific elements of an RO’s response plan to ensure the effectiveness of the response plan and the RO’s readiness to implement it.

Response organizations will also need to invite local Indigenous and coastal communities, other jurisdictions and stakeholders to their simulation exercises. Under the ROR, ROs are required to coordinate their exercises with vessels, OHF or the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), given that these parties would play an active role in response efforts to an oil pollution incident. The Regulations will require ROs to invite a broader range of groups that could be directly impacted by a ship-source spill and may have a role or vested interest in response efforts. The involvement of these parties will depend on factors such as the nature and purpose of the exercise, but the parties will be invited to at least observe the exercise. Where appropriate, local communities can also provide knowledge and expertise about the area.

An RO could demonstrate its efforts to invite these additional groups in its exercises by, for example, outlining roles for these groups in its simulation program and providing TC with the list of groups that were invited. TC inspectors will review this information before exercises take place and provide feedback if needed. Should TC inspectors determine after reviewing the exercise program and distribution lists that a certain local community organization was not invited, they could seek clarification from the RO as to why not and require the RO to invite the organization. Further details as to how an RO could demonstrate efforts to include these groups are outlined in the updated Environmental Response Standards.

Reporting and notification requirements

The Regulations will also establish various new reporting requirements for ROs. For example, ROs will be required to maintain a record and description of the training provided to personnel and contractors for at least five years, and to provide these records to TC upon request. Response organizations will also be required to submit an exercise report within 45 days of completing an exercise. These measures will support marine safety and environmental protection by helping TC to verify the training that an RO’s personnel and contractors have received and to review the results of exercises conducted and whether any deficiencies in the RO’s response plan were identified.

Furthermore, ROs will be required to notify TC when they have been activated to respond to a ship-source oil pollution incident and any other type of pollution incident that could affect their capacity to respond to a ship-source oil spill. Some ROs also provide response services for other types of incidents, such as land-based oil spills. While these types of incidents fall outside the scope of the CSA 2001, an RO could potentially use equipment or resources for these incidents that have also been identified in their ship-source oil spill response plans. These types of notifications will help TC to monitor and determine whether, in spite of assisting with other incidents, an RO has sufficient capacity on hand to meet its mandate under the CSA 2001 to address ship-source oil spill incidents for which they are certified. The Regulations do not prescribe the method for notifying TC to provide ROs the flexibility to choose the most appropriate means to advise TC, given the nature and circumstances of the incident. The Environmental Response Standards document will provide guidance for how ROs could notify TC, including measures such as email notifications.

The Regulations designate non-compliance with this requirement as a violation under the Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations, which will be subject to an AMP of up to $100,000 per violation.

Reviewing and submitting response plans and publishing fees

The ROR require ROs to review and update their response plans at least once per year, but they must also notify the Minister immediately if any substantive changes have been made to their response plans. The ROR also require ROs to provide the Minister four copies of their plans each time the plans are submitted. Four copies were originally required so the response plan could be distributed to the national, regional and district TC offices responsible for reviewing the plan. In 2019, the Canada Transportation Act was amended to allow regulated parties to submit required documents to the Minister in an electronic format, and ROs have since met the requirement to submit their response plans by sending one electronic copy to TC as a standard practice. Therefore, the Regulations will provide that ROs must submit one copy of their response plans, which may be provided electronically to align with modern practices.

The Regulations will require ROs to review their plans annually and either update and submit the revised response plan to the Minister or notify the Minister in writing (e.g. by email) if no updates are needed. The Regulations will also require ROs to review and, if necessary, update their response plans and submit them to the Minister within 45 days after identifying a deficiency following a simulation exercise or a response to an oil spill, as well as changes to information in their response plan related to

The Regulations will also clarify how ROs are to publish fees for their spill response services. The CSA 2001 requires ROs to publish their fees in the “prescribed” manner 30 days in advance of the fees coming into effect. However, the current regulations do not specify how ROs are to do this. The purpose of the 30-day time frame is to provide interested persons the opportunity to apply to the Minister to review the reasonableness of the proposed fees. Given that ROs are prohibited under the CSA 2001 from charging fees until 30 days after they have given notice, it is important that the Regulations clarify how the notification process is to be done.

The ROs had published their fees in the Canada Gazette, Part I, as a standard practice, stemming from the former Canada Shipping Act requirement. However, ROs have stated that they have not been able to publish in the Canada Gazette for the last several years without an express requirement to do so. Consequently, they have been publishing their fees on their websites. Given the industry’s familiarity with the Canada Gazette publication process and that the Canada Gazette is broadly available to all Canadians, the Regulations will expressly require ROs to publish their fees in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Suspending or cancelling an RO’s certificate

The Regulations will clarify the conditions under which the Minister may suspend or cancel an RO’s certificate. The CSA 2001 grants the Minister the authority to suspend or cancel a certificate “in the circumstances and on the grounds set out in the regulations.” However, the ROR do not outline what these criteria could include. The Regulations indicate that the Minister may suspend or cancel a certificate if the Minister determines that an RO is non-compliant with the requirements or if the Minister believes that it would be in the public interest to do so. For instance, the Minister may suspend or cancel an RO’s certificate in cases where the RO has not adequately demonstrated that it is able or willing to provide the oil spill response services for which they were certified. This could include instances such as an RO not maintaining the equipment capacity at the level for which they are certified despite directions from TC to do so, or other repeated cases of non-compliance with the RO showing an inability or unwillingness to comply.

It should be noted that this amendment is not an indication of compliance concerns TC has experienced with the ROs. To the contrary, ROs have demonstrated a high level of compliance with existing requirements. However, given the impact that a certification suspension would have on an RO and the oil spill preparedness and response regime, it is important that the Regulations clarify the circumstances in which this measure could be applied.

Amendments for OHF operators

The Regulations will amend various requirements for OHF operators to address gaps that have been identified by TC after several years of implementation.

Requirements for OHF operators north of 60°N

For instance, the Regulations will clarify and harmonize the minimum response equipment requirements for OHF operators north and south of 60°N. As noted in the “Issues” section, there is an unintended gap in these requirements. The Regulations will clarify that OHF operators north of 60°N must have available for immediate use the same minimum levels of response equipment as operators south of 60°N. This will ensure a consistent minimum level of oil spill response readiness at OHFs across the country, regardless of where the facility is located.

Exercise program schedule requirements

The Regulations will also update the exercise program requirements for OHF operators. Under the existing regime, OHF operators must establish an exercise program to assess the effectiveness of their emergency plans, but they are not expressly required to implement these programs or report on the results of the exercises. For clarity and certainty, the Regulations will require operators to include in their emergency plans a schedule for conducting exercises. OHF operators will continue to be required to include exercises that are coordinated with the Minister and, where possible, with parties that would be involved in an incident or be requested to respond in the event of an incident. Operators will also be required to provide a post-exercise report within 90 days after completing the exercise that includes information such as ’lessons learned’ and any gaps identified in their emergency plans.

Training description and reporting requirements

The Regulations will update training and post-incident reporting requirements. Specifically, OHF operators will need to include the dates and frequency of training provided with respect to their emergency plans, similar to what they do for prevention plans. Operators will also need to add the position titles in the training description presented in their plans and their training records to confirm that personnel have received the training necessary for the positions they hold. As there are currently no requirements with respect to how long an OHF operator must maintain their records, the Regulations will require OHF operators to maintain records of training on their prevention and emergency plans for at least five years and provide them to the Minister upon request.

Operators will also be required to prepare post-incident reports for all oil pollution incidents at their facilities and submit them to the Minister within 90 days after the day in which the incident occurred. The reports will need to include information such as the causes of and contributing factors to the incident, as well as actions that are needed to reduce the risk of recurrence. An OHF operator will need to consider the findings of these reports when reviewing or amending their prevention or emergency plans.

Updating and submitting plans

The Regulations will revise the time frames for when OHF operators must complete and submit updated prevention and emergency plans to the Minister. Currently, operators have to review their plans at least once a year and any time that a deficiency has been identified or a change to business processes or operations is identified that could affect the transferring of oil at their facilities. If an operator updates their plan following an annual review, they have up to one year to submit the revised plan. Where an operator reviews their plan following a change or identified gap, the operator must update their plan within 90 days of the event and submit the updated plan to the Minister within one year of having made any changes to the plan. This means that TC may not receive an updated plan until 455 days after the operator has identified a need to review and update their plan. In addition, in cases where an OHF operator determines that it does not need to update their plan, it is not required to notify TC that no changes have been made. The absence of a notification to TC can be ambiguous: while it could mean that the operator determined that no updates were necessary, it could also mean that the operator failed to update their plan appropriately. To ensure that TC receives clear, consistent and timely information about plans, the Regulations will require operators to review their plans annually and either submit an updated plan or notify the Minister that no updates are needed. It should be noted that the requirement to notify the Minister of no updates made to the plan was included in the proposed Regulations prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, but was not included in the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. In the case where operators have updated their plans following one of the listed events, they will need to submit their updated plans within 90 days of that event.

Accelerating notification periods for changes to operations that decrease transfer rates

The Regulations will also enable OHF operators to seek shorter notification periods for proposed changes to their oil transferring operations in cases where such changes would reduce their facility’s oil transferring rate. It should be noted that this requirement was included in the proposed Regulations prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, but had not been included in the accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement.

Under the CSA 2001, OHF operators are required to notify the Minister of any proposed changes to their oil transferring operations at least 180 days in advance of implementing the changes in cases where the changes would

The 180-day period provides TC with sufficient time to review the operator’s proposal and, if necessary, conduct inspections or other reviews to assess the potential risk factors of the proposed changes and ensure that these factors have been addressed by the operator. In cases where an OHF operator is planning to reduce their facility’s oil transfer rate, TC may not need the same amount of time to review the proposed changes as it would in cases where an operator wishes to increase their transfer rate capacity. For instance, an operator who already has plans and procedures in place for preventing and responding to an oil spill at their facility with a transfer rate of 750 m3 per hour may not need additional measures in place to operate that facility at a reduced transfer rate of 500 m3 per hour.

Enabling a shorter notification period for proposals that are not be expected to increase the risk or severity of an oil spill at a facility will enable OHF operators to implement changes to their business practices and operations in a timelier manner while also ensuring that marine safety and environmental protection risks associated with the proposed changes are addressed.

An OHF operator seeking a shortened notification period for proposals to reduce their facility’s oil transfer rate will need to include in their proposal a request for a shorter time frame, including the time frame it is seeking and the rationale for a shortened notification period. TC will review these requests and determine whether the Department can complete its review of the proposal within a shorter time frame. These reviews will continue to take into consideration elements such as whether the change could result in new or increased risk factors not considered by the operator’s prevention and emergency plan, and whether TC staff would need to conduct a facility inspection or other assessment. For instance, if an OHF conducts a very small number of oil transfers per year to supply a community with fuel and a transfer is expected to occur in less than 180 days, TC will take the potential impact of not reducing the 180-day notification period on transferring operations into consideration.

Identification of authorized personnel

Currently, OHF operators are required to include the name and position title of each member of their personnel that is authorized and responsible for ensuring that the response to an oil spill is immediate, effective, and sustained. However, the requirement to include the personnel member’s name means that an OHF operator has to update their plan each time there is a staffing change to that position. The Regulations will remove the requirement for OHF operators to include the name of authorized personnel and only require operators to provide the position title. Identifying only the position will maintain accountability regarding who is responsible for immediately initiating and ensuring the effectiveness of the OHF operator’s response while removing the administrative obligation for the operator to update their plans just to reflect staffing changes.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Consultations prior to the publication of the proposed Regulations

From 2018 to 2019, TC sought broad feedback on how to improve the RO requirements through a discussion paper posted on the Let’s Talk – Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) page and engagement sessions and meetings with Indigenous groups, industry, non-governmental organizations, provinces and local communities. In December 2023, TC posted another discussion paper and held engagement sessions and meetings with interested groups to seek feedback on proposed changes to the ROR and the ERR that built on feedback received from previous engagement.

A summary of the feedback received and a description of how it was taken into account in the development of the proposed Regulations can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for the proposed Regulations published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, published on June 22, 2024.

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The Regulations were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for public comment from June 22, 2024, to September 5, 2024. A total of 16 respondents provided comments, including the 4 ROs, 3 OHF operators, 1 industry association, 7 Indigenous groups, and 1 member of the public. TC also met with 4 Indigenous groups and 1 industry stakeholder to discuss their questions and concerns. Respondents were generally supportive of amending the requirements for ROs and OHF operators but raised various concerns about the provisions related to ARPs, time standards, exercise program requirements, and reporting, compliance and enforcement.

The ROs generally supported the inclusion of ARPs, with two noting that they already develop such plans for their GARs. However, the ROs expressed concern about the level of detail and the amount of data the Regulations would require them to develop for the ARPs. For example, several ROs asked if they would be required to provide the precise numbers of vessels operating within the area of the ARP and how often this data would need to be updated. The ROs also expressed concern that the Regulations would require them specifically to identify, collect, and maintain data on environmentally sensitive areas throughout their GAR. They noted that they incorporate information and data on environmentally sensitive areas from Environment and Climate Change Canada and other federal and provincial agencies into their area plans and argued that they should be able to continue with this approach. The intent of the requirement to establish ARPs is for ROs to provide a description of the types of vessel traffic and the local conditions of the identified areas, as well as how the RO obtained this information within the ARP. The Regulations were modified to clarify that ROs will need to provide a description of vessel traffic and environmentally sensitive areas in their ARPs and that they will be able to reference information about environmentally sensitive areas from federal, provincial and other authorities in their ARP.

Several Indigenous groups reiterated that Indigenous communities should be consulted and provide input on the development of response plans for their areas, as they have expert local knowledge and would be directly impacted by any oil spill and response operation in their areas. It is important to note that ROs are just one party involved in oil spill preparedness and response in Canada, and that there are other means by which the knowledge of local communities can be incorporated into response planning. For instance, the Government has undertaken several pilot projects to establish integrated marine response plans for various regions that include knowledge from Indigenous and coastal communities.

Ten stakeholders raised concerns about the new exercise program requirements for ROs, including the requirement to involve local communities and stakeholders in exercises, and the number of exercises that must be completed. Six of the Indigenous groups and one of the ROs expressed support for requiring the involvement of local communities in exercises, with the Indigenous groups stating that local Indigenous communities should be involved in planning and objective setting of exercises as well. The other three ROs noted that they currently invite local communities and stakeholders to their exercises either directly or through federal and provincial partners and expressed their preference to be able to continue with this approach where appropriate. They also sought clarification on the level of local involvement that would be required, and how they are to demonstrate that they have involved local groups, considering that these groups may choose not to be involved.

It is important that local coastal communities be aware of activities occurring in their local waters and the related response planning and procedures. Keeping local communities aware of planning and activities will help ensure that exercises are not scheduled at times, and do not take place in locations that could disturb cultural or other local practices and events. It will also provide opportunities for communities to share local knowledge of the area to support the coordination of regional response planning. The aim of this requirement is to ensure that local parties are given an opportunity to participate in exercises, while keeping the nature of the participation flexible so as to align with the format and conditions of the exercise, as well as the interest and capacity of the local party. Recognizing that an RO’s compliance cannot be contingent on a third party opting to participate, the requirement to include local communities and stakeholders in exercises has been modified to clarify that local communities and stakeholders are to be at least invited to participate in exercises. Participation could involve a range of activities, but it would allow local communities and stakeholders to at least observe and, where appropriate, share local knowledge of the area. ROs will have the flexibility to determine how to extend invitations to their exercises, but they will ultimately be responsible for these invitations being sent.

One Indigenous group expressed that limiting exercises to an RO’s PAR and ERA could prevent ROs from conducting exercises in other important areas in their GAR. TC encourages ROs to conduct exercises for a range of oil spill scenarios within their GARs. To this end, the exercise program requirements will not limit exercises to be done within a PAR or ERA but will provide the ROs flexibility to conduct exercises in any location within their geographical areas, including locations outside of a PAR or ERA.

With respect to the new reporting requirements, some ROs questioned why they must review and potentially update their response plans after every exercise and oil spill response, arguing that there are already procedures in place to ensure that significant changes and updates to response plans are regularly shared, such as the annual update. It should be clarified that ROs will not be required to review their response plan after every exercise or incident, but only in instances where a deficiency has been identified in the plan.

ROs expressed concerns about the inclusion of AMPs in the Regulations and how the Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement appeared to indicate a need for stronger enforcement measures. ROs argued that they have a long history of compliance with requirements, and it was, therefore, not clear why such enforcement measures were needed. It should be noted that many existing RO requirements have been subject to AMPs since 2018. Thus, the inclusion of AMPs in these Regulations is not a new enforcement approach or an indication of compliance concerns. The new designations will simply ensure that the new requirements can be enforced in a manner consistent with other RO requirements. While AMPs have not yet been used to enforce RO requirements, without the ability to administer AMPs, TC would be limited to other measures, such as issuing warnings or suspending an RO’s certificate. These measures may be inappropriate to address some situations. For example, warnings may be insufficient for repeated or severe non-compliance, while suspensions could be too harsh for less serious cases of non-compliance. AMPs are a central element in implementing TC’s graduated approach to enforcement. An extensive toolkit including AMPs ensures that, in all cases, TC’s response can be tailored to achieve both compliance and deterrence.

One RO and six Indigenous groups reiterated several proposals put forward in the previous consultation processes discussed above. These included measures such as certifying ROs up to a 20 000-tonne response capacity, designating additional ports, shortening the response time standards, making RO plans available and providing Indigenous communities with the opportunity to review and comment on them.

The Regulations will not require ROs to increase their response capacity by 10 000 tonnes. Ship-source oil spills beyond this amount are rare and have not happened in Canada for the last 50 years. It would be highly costly for ROs to maintain a response capacity beyond 10 000 tonnes, especially given that such incidents are highly unlikely. As noted above, the 10 000-tonne capacity refers to an RO having the capacity to recover 10 000 tonnes of oil within a 10-day period, and it can continue to recover oil beyond this threshold as appropriate until a response operation is completed. Furthermore, Canadian ROs have mutual aid agreements with other response partners that enable them to secure additional resources as needed to respond to spills that are beyond their capacity.

In addition, the Regulations will not designate additional ports nor shorten existing response time standards. Ports are designated under the ROR based on TC national policy that considers factors related to the risk and potential severity of an oil pollution incident, such as the volume of oil transferred at the port and the density and volume of vessel traffic in the port area. The policy also considers whether a port has the infrastructure to support a warehouse capable of storing sufficient response equipment to respond to at least a 150-tonne spill (ROs are required to maintain this level of equipment at a designated port). Based on this policy, no additional Canadian port currently meets the designation criteria. The existing response time standards are linked to the designation of ports and identification of ERAs and therefore any changes to these standards would need to be considered as part of a review of the national port designation policy. TC is committed to reviewing this policy and will engage in this process once a concrete time frame for a review has been established. This work will require significant policy analysis and engagement, and TC has therefore prioritized measures that TC is ready to implement in the near term for inclusion in the Regulations.

The Regulations also will not require an RO’s response plan to be made publicly available, as these plans can contain proprietary and commercially sensitive information. However, as noted above, participation in exercises provides an opportunity for local communities to become more aware of response planning and operations in their areas. It should be noted that oil spill response operations involving multiple response partners are often coordinated through the establishment of incident command structures. These mechanisms ensure that all parties involved work together to mitigate the risk of duplicative or conflicting response efforts.

Four Indigenous groups called for increased capacity and training for local Indigenous communities so that they may play an active role in oil spill response operations and ensure the protection of culturally, spiritually, and economically important areas. One OHF operator also called for the Government to provide OHFs north of 60°N with oil spill response training. The Regulations are focused on establishing minimum oil spill preparedness requirements for OHF operators and TC-certified ROs to operate in Canada. Establishing funding mechanisms or other measures to support training of regulated parties and increase the oil spill response capacity of other parties would be outside the scope of this regulatory framework, and therefore, no changes to the Regulations were made in this regard.

Three OHF operators, one industry association, and one Indigenous group commented on the new requirements for OHF operators with respect to exercise program schedules, the role of Indigenous communities in oil spill preparedness and response, and reviewing and reporting requirements.

One OHF operator and one industry association suggested that the requirement to provide a schedule of exercises should not be so prescriptive as to require, for example, specific dates and a detailed description of the exercises in an annual plan. For clarity, this provision does not require specific dates to be included in the schedule and an OHF operator could indicate the type of exercises it plans to conduct on an annual basis. However, OHF operators continue to be required to provide the Minister with 30-days’ notice of an exercise to be implemented. Further information on what an OHF operator should provide in an exercise schedule is included in the Environmental Response Standards. Given that the requirements do not prescribe the information to be included in the schedule as these stakeholders suggested, no changes were made to the Regulations with respect to this requirement.

One OHF operator raised concerns about the requirement to coordinate exercises with other parties, stating that it would not be feasible to coordinate all exercises with the listed parties. The commenter further stated that OHF operators should only be required to list the parties with which they intend to coordinate their exercises. For clarity, the Regulations do not require OHF operators to coordinate all exercises with other listed parties. Rather, the requirement is for OHF operators to provide a description of their exercise program in their plans, which must include at least some exercises to be coordinated with the listed parties. TC recognizes that the level and depth of coordination will depend on factors such as the nature and conditions of the exercise and the willingness of third parties. Given that the Regulations only require OHF operators to describe with whom they intend to coordinate exercises in their exercise program, no changes have been made to the Regulations in response to the concern raised.

Two OHF operators sought clarity on when they would need to update and submit their prevention and emergency plans to the Minister. Specifically, they asked if the submission of an updated plan within 90 days following one of the listed events would count as their annual update or if they would still be required to conduct an annual review within one year following their previous annual update. For clarity, the “90-day review” provision only requires OHF operators to review and update the parts of their plans where deficiencies have been identified following an incident response, exercise, or change in business practice, policy or procedure. Since this does not require a full review of an operator’s prevention and emergency plans, an operator would still need to provide an annual update within one year of its previous update.

If an operator reviews its plans as part of the 90-day review and determines that no further changes are required at the time of their annual update, it will need to notify TC in writing (e.g. via email) that no updates have been made to its plans. This notification will help TC to verify that it has the operator’s most up-to-date plans on an annual basis and that no further changes have been made to an operator’s plans following the 90-day review process. No changes were made to the Regulations in response to the comments about the 90-day review requirements.

One OHF operator and one industry association suggested that the requirement to prepare post-incident reports should only apply in cases where the operator is responsible for the incident. They argued that in cases where the vessel is responsible for an incident, such as due to a navigational error or striking the OHF dock, the vessel should be required to identify the root causes of the incident. TC’s position is that, to ensure ongoing effectiveness of an OHF operator’s emergency plan, these plans should be reviewed each time they are implemented. By requiring OHF operators to submit post-incident reports, the Regulations will ensure that plans are consistently reviewed. No changes were made to the Regulations in response to the stakeholders’ comments about this issue. However, it should be noted that, in cases where the operator believes the root cause of the incident was the result of actions taken by the vessel or another party, such information could be included in the report.

Two OHF operators sought clarity on the proposed requirement to classify OHFs based on their “actual transfer rate,” suggesting that it was unclear what this term would entail or how it would affect their classification. The purpose of this proposed amendment was to clarify that the transfer rate should take into account, where applicable, simultaneous oil transferring operations through multiple lines to or from multiple vessels.

Following the feedback received at prepublication, TC has determined that the proposed amendment would not effectively address the issue of simultaneous oil transferring operations through multiple lines and, consequently, the proposed amendment has been removed from the Regulations. Instead, TC has provided additional technical guidance in the Environmental Response Standards about how OHF operators should determine the transfer rate of their facilities when submitting a proposal to operate a facility or change their facility’s oil transferring operations.

Following the prepublication, the Regulations were updated to require operators to include the position title in the training descriptions of their plans and their training records. This change will enable TC inspectors to verify more efficiently that an OHF operator’s personnel has taken the training necessary for their positions by comparing an employee’s training record to the training description for their position. Therefore, establishing it as a requirement will ensure that this information is provided consistently by all OHF operators.

The Regulations were also updated to increase the retention period for RO and OHF operator training records from three to five years, as it is possible that a TC inspector may not be able to review an RO’s or OHF’s training records within three years. Extending the retention period to five years will ensure that TC is able to review the records before the expiry period. Given that ROs and OHF operators maintain their records digitally and already retain them for at least five years, this change is not expected to increase costs for stakeholders.

Two Indigenous groups raised concerns that the proposed Regulations would not come into force until one year following publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. From their perspective, a one-year delay would be too long; they argued that the amendments are needed as soon as possible to better prepare for and respond to marine oil spills.

TC recognizes the importance of the Regulations being implemented as soon as feasible to support marine safety and environmental protection. However, the amendments to the RO requirements may require significant changes to an RO’s response plans, and ROs will need time to implement them. Therefore, no changes were made to the coming-into-force provisions for the RO requirements. By contrast, the requirements for OHF operators are either already being followed as a best practice or do not require immediate action from an OHF operator to be compliant. Therefore, the OHF operator requirements can be implemented upon the Regulations being published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

For instance, OHF operators already maintain training records and are required to review and update their plans within specified time frames. The only changes to the plan review requirement are notifying the Minister that no updates have been made and submitting the updated plans once they have been completed, rather than up to one year after the fact. In addition, most operators also already prepare and implement exercise program schedules, and the few that do not currently do so will be able to update their plans to include the schedule as part of their next annual plan update.

New requirements, such as including additional information in an operator’s training description and records, are not expected to require a significant amount of time for operators to implement and could be completed as part of an operator’s next annual plan update. Other requirements, such as submitting post-exercise and post-incident reports, will only need to be implemented following an exercise or specific events and would not require immediate action from OHF operators to be compliant.

Changing the coming-into-force date for the OHF operator requirements to the date of publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, would enable OHF operators to benefit from certain provisions up to one year earlier. For instance, operators would be able to immediately take advantage of the ability to seek shorter notification periods to make operational changes that reduce their facility’s oil transfer rate. This could enable them to adjust their business practices and required response capacity within weeks of the Regulations being published.

Removing the compliance period would also better support environmental protection by ensuring that measures to improve the oil spill preparedness of OHF operators are implemented up to one year earlier. Given these benefits, and that OHF operators implement many of the new requirements or would still have up to their next annual plan update to do so, TC has determined that the one-year compliance period is not necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the Regulations. Therefore, the Regulations have been modified so that the new requirements for OHF operators come into force on the date of publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Finally, it should be noted that the provisions shortening the notification period for proposals to reduce an OHF’s transfer rate, removing the requirement to include the names of the personnel authorized to implement an OHF operator’s emergency plan, and requiring OHF operators to notify the Minister if no changes were made to their plans following an annual review were included in the prepublished Regulations. However, these provisions were not discussed in the “Description” section of the Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement narrative that accompanied the Regulations. For clarity, no changes have been made to these provisions since prepublication. The first two measures are not expected to have a significant impact on OHF operators as they do not require operators to take any additional measures and can reduce administrative costs. The notification requirement is expected to have a minimal impact, as it will only require operators to submit an email to TC indicating that no changes have been made to their plans after they have done their annual review.

Summary of changes to the Regulations following the prepublication
Provisions related to ROs
Proposed Regulations
prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I		 Regulations published in the Canada Gazette, Part II
An RO’s ARP must include the types of vessels located and types of oil transported in the area. An RO’s ARP must include a description of the types of vessels located and oil transported in the area.
The ARP must include a description of environmentally sensitive areas identified by the RO. This requirement is modified to clarify that ROs do not need to identify environmentally sensitive areas themselves, but can reference information from federal, provincial, or other authorities.
An RO must invite local Indigenous groups and stakeholders in conducting exercises. ROs must invite local Indigenous groups and stakeholders to participate in exercises.
An RO must retain training records for three years. An RO must retain training records for five years.
Provisions related to OHF operators
Proposed Regulations
prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I		 Regulations published in the Canada Gazette, Part II
OHFs are to be classified based on their actual transfer rate. This provision has been removed and additional guidance will be provided on this matter in the Environmental Response Standards.
OHF operators must include in their training descriptions the dates and frequency of training provided with respect to their emergency plans. In addition to including the dates and the frequency of training provided with their training descriptions, OHF operators must include the position titles in the training descriptions and their training records.
An OHF operator must retain training records for three years. An OHF operator must retain training records for five years.
New OHF operator requirements come into force one year after the Regulations are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette. New OHF operator requirements come into force upon publication in Part II of the Canada Gazette.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposal is likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect. The analysis identified treaty obligations with respect to engaging with modern treaty signatories by notifying them of the proposed changes and considering their advice and recommendations in developing the Regulations.

To this end, TC contacted modern treaty partners to share with them directly the 2023 discussion paper noted in the “Consultation” section above for their consideration and to seek their views. TC also extended an invitation to meet with modern treaty partners to discuss their questions and concerns about the Regulations. Two organizations requested information sessions to seek further information about the proposals in the discussion paper.

TC received feedback from one modern treaty partner who shared views similar to those shared by some of the Indigenous groups discussed in the “Consultation” section above. Specifically, the modern treaty partner noted that Indigenous groups should be involved in response exercises and operations, as well as the development and review of response strategies and localized response plans. They also stated that OHF operators’ emergency plans should be made easily available to the public to improve the ability of Indigenous groups to be involved in oil spill response. As noted above, TC strongly encourages the ROs to engage with local Indigenous peoples when developing their subregional plans. Requiring ROs to invite local Indigenous groups to exercises would provide an opportunity for Indigenous groups to share their perspectives and concerns with respect to an RO’s plans.

The modern treaty partner expressed that improvements must be made to better prepare for smaller and hard-to-recover oil spills, as these types of spills can still cause significant environmental damage. An RO is activated when the prescribed vessel, OHF operator or the CCG determine that the RO’s services are required to respond to an incident and not based specifically on the spill size. In cases where the polluter is unknown, unwilling, or unable to respond to a spill, the CCG takes over the spill response and will either conduct the clean-up itself or hire an RO to do so.

Negative impacts, the creation of barriers, or discriminatory regulatory practices are not anticipated as a result of the Regulations.

Instrument choice

Options considered to address identified gaps in the existing regime and enhance ship-source oil spill preparedness included implementing enhanced policy measures and introducing regulatory amendments.

Under an enhanced policy measures approach, the ROR and the existing ERR would have remained in place, with TC providing policy and technical guidance for ROs and OHF operators to address identified gaps. For example, this guidance could have included the details for how ROs should develop their ARPs, exercise programs, and response plan activation procedures, and what should be included in them. However, under this approach, the policy measures would not be mandatory and, as a result, may not be consistently or comprehensively implemented. Moreover, TC would be unable to enforce the measures. While the Minister of Transport would continue to have the discretion to suspend or not renew an RO’s certificate for public interest reasons, it would not be feasible to rely on such an approach to address non-compliance with voluntary measures.

This option would also be ineffective in addressing concerns with respect to the implementation of OHF operator exercise programs. As noted above, some operators have already questioned whether the ERR require them to conduct exercises, and further non-mandatory policy guidance on this issue would be unlikely to result in more exercises being done.

For these reasons, TC chose to pursue regulatory amendments, which will be supported by a revised Environmental Response Standards document to provide technical guidance detailing how the new requirements are to be implemented. This approach will support enhanced and more consistent response planning and preparedness among ROs by establishing specific requirements with respect to ARPs, activation procedures, and exercise programs that all ROs will need to follow.

The Regulations will also ensure more consistent levels of response preparedness among OHF operators by aligning and strengthening requirements around response equipment and OHF operator exercise programs.

The reporting and plan review requirements will enable TC to monitor response and the prevention and emergency plans more consistently and more frequently. These requirements will also create more opportunities to identify gaps in response plans before they need to be implemented to respond to an oil pollution incident.

The Regulations will also designate RO requirements around reviewing and updating their response plans and notifying TC when responding to incidents that could affect their capacity to respond to other oil spills for which they are certified. Designating these provisions will ensure that they can be enforced via AMPs in the same manner as other RO preparedness requirements, which is expected to deter non-compliance, thereby helping to enhance marine safety and environmental protection.

The CSA 2001 requires that certain requirements be set out in regulation by the Governor in Council, such as the manner in which ROs must publish their fees and the grounds on which the Minister may suspend or cancel an RO’s certificate. Therefore, these elements can only be addressed through regulatory amendments.

Although the Regulations are anticipated to result in a net cost of $1.21 million over the 11 years after they are registered, TC expects that the qualitative benefits of the Regulations in enhancing marine safety and environmental protection by improving ship-source oil pollution preparedness will justify these monetized costs.

Regulatory analysis

The Regulations will amalgamate the ROR into the ERR, which will affect ROs and OHF operators. Overall, the Regulations will formalize voluntary practices and introduce new requirements that contribute to strengthening oil spill response preparedness and clarifying the intent of certain provisions. The total net cost of the Regulations is estimated to be $1.21 million between 2025 and 2035 (present value in 2023 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2025 at a 7% discount rate), with $1.69 million in total costs and a total benefit of $480,544 over the analytical time frame. Other benefits such as aligning with best practices, improving compliance monitoring, supporting environmental protection and potentially enhancing response time are discussed qualitatively.

Changes to the cost-benefit analysis since prepublication in Part I of the Canada Gazette

As previously discussed under the “Consultation” section, TC revised some proposed requirements based on a number of comments from stakeholders. As a result, the cost-benefit analysis was updated as follows:

The cost-benefit analysis was further refined to ensure alignment with the Regulations and to more accurately capture impacts. As a result, the following updates were made:

As a result of the updates above, the total net cost impact of the Regulations was updated from $1.09 million to $1.21 million (in present value). More specifically, the benefits of the Regulations increased from $420,652 to $480,544, and the costs increased from $1.51 million to $1.69 million. The changes in costs and benefits include the following:

Analytical framework

The benefits and costs for the Regulations have been assessed in accordance with the Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS). Where possible, impacts are quantified and monetized, with only the direct costs and benefits for stakeholders being considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

Benefits and costs associated with the Regulations are assessed based on comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government of Canada does not implement the Regulations. The regulatory scenario provides information on the intended outcomes because of the Regulations. Further details on these two scenarios are presented below. The formula used to calculate annualized values under the cost-benefit statement and the small business lens follows the methodology prescribed in the TBS Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals, where impacts occurring in the first period are undiscounted.

The analysis estimated the impact of the Regulations over an 11-year period from 2025 to 2035, taking into account the one-year transitional period for ROs, with the year 2025 being when the Regulations are expected to be registered. Unless otherwise stated, costs and benefits are expressed in present value in 2023 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2025 at a 7% discount rate, for the 11-year analytical period.

Stakeholder profile

The Regulations will affect 4 ROs, 224 OHF operators and TC. Of the four ROs, ECRC, PTMS and ALERT respond to spills in the East Coast, while WCMRC is the only RO operating in the West Coast. OHFs are located across Canada, both south and north of 60°N.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

Overall, the analysis assumes that existing voluntary practices under the baseline scenario will continue over the analytical period.

ROs

Under the baseline scenario, ROs are required to immediately notify TC of a significant change in their response plans and must submit their updated oil spill response plans to TC annually. Response plans include elements such as records of personnel trained, contractors and third-party vessels, and high-level information on treatment and oil recovery in subregional areas within their GAR. In addition, ROs have ARPs for sub-areas within their GAR, but are not required to reflect information on issues such as the nature of vessel traffic in these areas. Also, as best practice, all ROs currently provide TC with an electronic copy of their response plans. TC currently inspects each RO annually and uses their plans to verify the needed information. Additionally, as part of existing verification procedures, ROs obtain written confirmation from contractors stating that they are capable of performing their tasks and have the needed certifications.

All ROs are required to establish and conduct an exercise program during the three-year certification period, but the specific number and type of exercises completed are set through best practice and in consultation with TC. Specifically, they all conduct at least four notification exercises per PAR (ECRC has seven PARs and the others have one PAR each). In addition, WCMRC, ALERT and PTMS each conduct at least eight oil spill simulation exercises per PAR in each certification period, while ECRCfootnote 5 conducts 54 such exercises.footnote 6 The frequency of oil spill simulation exercises during a three-year period depends on the category of the exercise (based on the four oil quantities described earlier):

Moreover, all ROs are required to coordinate exercises with certain third parties involved in the protection of the marine environment (see the “Description” section for details), and they all voluntarily demonstrate their coordination efforts with TC (e.g. by sharing the email invitation sent to third parties). However, other third parties not mentioned in the current Regulations, e.g. Indigenous communities, are not required to be included in coordination efforts during exercises. Once an exercise is completed, all ROs voluntarily submit a report to TC within 45 days.

Also, ROs are required to have procedures to deploy or deliver the necessary equipment within a given time frame after being contracted to respond to an incident, based on the size and location of the spill. These procedures are verified by TC during an exercise. All ROs also have procedures to clean 500 m of shoreline per day.

A current practice among ROs, to provide information on their fees, is to make them available on their respective websites instead of publishing their fees in the Canada Gazette, Part I. TC has also observed that ROs maintain records of training provided to personnel and contractors for at least five years as a best practice. Finally, various requirements for ROs and OHF operators related to response plans and TC notifications are already subject to AMPs under the Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations.

Under the regulatory scenario, ROs will be required to submit additional information in their response plans annually (e.g. the resources needed to protect and treat areas of environmental sensitivities, contractors and third-party vessels) and the nature of vessel traffic in their ARPs. The Regulations will also require ROs to submit their updated plans within 45 days after a significant change to their response plans. Additionally, ROs will provide TC inspectors a written confirmation from contractors stating that they are capable of performing their tasks and have the needed certifications.

TC will continue to inspect each RO annually. Also, ROs will need ensure that they have the planning and procedures to complete the activation of their response plans within two hours of being requested to respond to a spill, which TC will verify during an exercise. TC will also review the procedure in their response plans. In addition, ROs will need to notify TC when they respond to both ship-source oil spill incidents and non-ship-source oil spill incidents that could affect their capacity to respond to ship-source oil spills (it is assumed that ROs will notify TC via email). ROs will also need to ensure that a broader range of groups (e.g. Indigenous communities) are invited to exercises and will need to provide evidence of their coordination efforts to TC. A copy of an email sent to a range of interested groups and TC, which is currently done in the baseline scenario, will be sufficient to demonstrate compliance.

Furthermore, during a three-year period, all ROs will also be required to conduct at least 4 notification exercises per PAR and at least 8 oil spill simulation exercises per PAR. The Regulations will allow ROs to conduct some of the oil spill simulation exercises outside their PARs (see the “Description” section for details). More specifically, the Regulations will align with the practices of RO under the baseline scenario, except for ECRC, which will conduct 13 Tier 3 exercises instead of 11 (assuming 5 in the first year, 4 in the second year and 4 in the third year).footnote 7 TC will attend these additional exercises, and ECRC will need to reflect it in their response plan.

Each RO will carry out one oil spill simulation exercise as an unannounced exercise once TC has finalized the development of unannounced exercises (expected to start in 2029). TC will also attend and collaborate with ROs in developing objectives for both the oil spill simulation and unannounced exercises.

Moreover, best practices will be formalized in the Regulations. These include activities such as providing an electronic copy of response plans, having procedures to clean 500 m of shoreline per day, submitting post-exercise reports to TC within 45 days of an exercise, conducting at least one exercise within an ERA, and maintaining training records for five years.

Additionally, ROs will be required to publish their fees in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Finally, new requirements related to ROs reviewing and updating their response plans and notifying TC of responding to ship-source and non-ship-source spills will be subject to AMPs. Since the new designated provisions are closely linked to current requirements subject to AMPs and current best practices, TC inspectors and enforcement officers will not require additional training. However, TC enforcement officers will be notified by email of the new designated violations immediately after the Regulations are registered. Costs associated with such notifications are expected to be minimal.

OHF operators

Under the baseline scenario, the 224 OHFs are classified from Classes 1 to 4, which also determines TC’s three-year inspection planning:

OHF operators are required to develop prevention and emergency plans containing general information on their procedures and facilities, such as the descriptions of training under both plans and the frequency of personnel training under prevention plans. TC has observed that all OHF operators voluntarily maintain these training records for at least five years. Operators are also required to review their prevention and emergency plans annually. In the case of a significant change (such as a change in business practice or an identified deficiency in the plan), the plan must be updated within 90 days and submitted within one year after the update. On average, every year 146 OHF operators submit their updated plans after a significant change, while the remaining 78 operators, in the absence of updates, are not required to submit a notification of no update to TC. Moreover, OHF operators south of 60°N (171 OHFs) must identify, review, and/or update in their plans the name of personnel authorized to implement the pollution emergency plan. As a current practice, operators south of 60°N also provide the position titles of the personnel authorized to implement the plan.

Only OHF operators south of 60°N are required to maintain a minimum amount of on-site equipment to respond to specified volumes of oil spills and present in their plans the procedures to respond to minimum oil spill scenarios; however, all but 5 OHF operators north of 60°N do this as a best practice (53 total OHF operators north of 60°N).

Furthermore, OHF operators are required to establish an exercise program in their plans but are not expressly required to conduct the exercises or to develop post-exercise reports. Nonetheless, TC experts estimate that, as a current practice, 213 operators each conduct one exercise every three years (a total of 71 exercises annually), while 11 operators located in remote locations do not conduct the exercises established in their plans. OHF operators are required to provide the Minister with a 30-day notice of an exercise to be implemented. OHF operators also include exercises that are coordinated with the Minister and, where possible, with parties involved in an incident or that would respond in the event of an incident.

Also, OHF operators must notify TC 180 days before making any changes to their oil transferring operations (see the “Description” section for details).

Under the regulatory scenario, OHF operators will be required to submit an updated plan, or a notification of no update, to the Minister within one year after the last submitted plan or notification of no update. OHF operators will also need to include the following additional information in the plans: the frequency of training provided under their emergency plans and the position titles of training provided under the emergency and prevention plans. At the same time, all operators of OHFs (regardless of their locations) will need to identify, review, and/or update in their plans the position title of the personnel authorized to implement the pollution emergency plan. Moreover, all operators will not need to provide records of training certifications for each employee in their oil pollution prevention plans. Also, the Regulations will formally require operators to maintain training records of employees for five years. Operators will need to add in their training records the position title of each person who received training.

Furthermore, OHF operators will need to develop post-incident reports for oil pollution incidents at facilities and submit them to the Minister within 90 days after the day on which the incident occurred. OHF operators north of 60°N will be required to maintain a minimum amount of on-site equipment to respond to specified volumes of oil spills and present in their plans the procedures to respond to minimum oil spill scenarios. Finally, the Regulations will require each OHF operator to conduct exercise schedules established in their plans (TC expects the current best practice of at least one exercise per OHF in three years to continue); indicate when exercises will take place; review their exercise schedule in their emergency plans as needed; and develop and submit a post-exercise report per exercise. Operators will continue to be required to provide the Minister with a 30-day notice of an exercise to be implemented, and include exercises that are coordinated with the Minister and, where possible, with parties involved in an incident or that would respond in the event of an incident.

Also, OHF operators will have the option to notify TC of oil transfer operation changes less than 180 days in advance of such changes. The notification would need to include an official request and rationale for the shortened notification period (see the “Description” section for details).

Key assumptions and data

The estimated impacts on affected stakeholders were based on the following key assumptions using TC internal data or analysis. On average,

Only ship-source oil spill incidents on the west coast (under the responsibility of WCMRC) would increase 13% in 2024 due to increased vessel traffic related to west coast projects,footnote 10 then 7.5%footnote 11 in 2025 and onward.

It should be noted that assumptions associated with ship-sourced oil spill incidents are made based on the projected increase in shipping traffic in Canadian waters without considering preventative measures being put in place to reduce the likelihood of increased incidents. Some qualitative research suggests that the number of marine oil spills and the amount of oil spilled worldwide have decreased due to improved safety measures.footnote 13 Thus, these assumptions likely represent the upper-bound cost scenario during the analytical time frame for the Regulations.

Unless otherwise stated, the wage rates below are used to estimate the opportunity costs for ROs, OHF operators and TC employees.

For the purposes of the analysis, it is also assumed that

Benefits

The Regulations will codify best practices, update existing requirements and establish new requirements to enhance oil spill response planning, preparedness, and compliance monitoring. This will support more localized environmental protection efforts and is expected to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of ROs to respond to spills. Most of the expected benefits are described qualitatively due to lack of information, except for the removal of two OHF requirements, resulting in estimated monetized benefits of $480,544 in total.

Aligning with best practices

Codifying current best practices will provide regulatory consistency and certainty with respect to preparedness expectations for ROs and OHF operators. This, in turn, will ensure a level playing field and enhance the overall efficiency of response preparedness across Canada.

Improving compliance monitoring

The Regulations reporting requirements will ensure that TC inspectors have more comprehensive and up-to-date information on ROs’ and OHF operators’ plans in which to monitor compliance. For instance, the requirement that OHF operators provide TC updated prevention and emergency plans within 90 days of a significant event will help ensure that TC inspectors have up-to-date plans when conducting inspections of OHF facilities and verifying the operators’ compliance with the Regulations. The requirements for ROs and OHF operators to provide training records and post-exercise reports will also help TC verify that all those involved in an RO’s or OHF operator’s response operations have received the necessary training, and that any gaps identified in an RO’s response plan have been addressed.

Strengthening compliance monitoring activities will help to ensure more effectively that ROs and OHF operators have the required plans and procedures in place, as well as identify potential deficiencies more quickly.

Supporting environmental protection

Requiring ROs to develop ARPs will better support oil spill response efforts by ensuring that they have more location-specific procedures to address the geographical and shipping characteristics, and the environmentally and socio-economically sensitive areas throughout their GAR. The exercise programs will help to evaluate the effectiveness of an RO’s response measures and their readiness to implement them, as well as identify gaps in the plan before they need to be implemented to respond to an oil spill. Enhancing response planning and readiness could help to mitigate the impacts of ship-source oil spills on coastal communities and their access to areas of cultural and socio-economic importance.

The exercise requirements for all OHF operators and the minimum equipment requirements for those north of 60°N will support marine safety and environmental protection in Canadian waters in this region. Specifically, the Regulations will ensure these operators regularly practise and evaluate the effectiveness of their procedures to support their continuous improvement of spill response operations. They will also ensure that these operators have the capacity to immediately respond to an oil spill at their facilities and mitigate the potential environmental pollution from such an incident.

Potential enhancement of response time

The two-hour activation procedure could help increase the likelihood that ROs respond to oil spills more quickly than in the baseline scenario. Practising this procedure during exercises will foster constant opportunities for ROs to update plans and relocate existing resources, as needed, to implement the activation procedure within two hours regardless of the size of the oil spills. However, it is difficult to assess how effectively the activation time standard will improve response times for actual spills for two reasons: (1) ROs are only required to meet existing response time standards (e.g. 18 hours to deliver equipment to the site of a spill in a PAR), and (2) response times to incidents can be impacted by external factors, such as poor sea, weather, and safety conditions. Nonetheless, the Regulations will create opportunities to enable equipment to be prepared and delivered more rapidly, as well as provide greater assurances to the public that the ROs will take immediate action to prepare to respond to a spill as soon as they are contracted.

Removal of some requirements for OHF operators

Once the Regulations come into force (see the “Implementation” section for details), OHF operators south of 60°N will no longer need to identify in their plans the names of personnel responsible for implementing the emergency plan. This means that OHF operators south of 60°N will not need to update their emergency plans just to reflect staffing changes. Additionally, all OHF operators will no longer need to provide information found in records of training certifications for each employee. The removal of these two requirements is expected to save one employee four hours per OHF every year. In addition, TC will no longer need to review such information, which is expected to save one employee at the GT-05 level 30 minutes per OHF every year. Therefore, the total cost saving is estimated to be $480,544, of which $435,781 is attributed to OHF operators and $44,763 to TC.

Costs

The Regulations will impose new requirements on ROs, OHF operators and TC, which are estimated to result in a total cost of $1.69 million, of which $167,841 is borne by ROs, $1.25 million by OHF operators, and $275,819 by TC.

Costs to ROs
1. Additional information

ROs will need to review and provide additional information in their response plans, which will take about 15 hours per RO in 2026, and 8 hours annually thereafter. Moreover, ROs will need 3 hours per ARPfootnote 17 in 2026 and 30 minutes per ARP in 2031 to reflect the nature of vessel traffic in their areas of response. Based on TC observations, ROs will only provide such information twice within the analytical time frame, since vessel traffic-related information is not expected to significantly change within the time frame.

Also, since additional pieces of information on contracted vessels and training records will be reviewed and verified during TC inspections, it is expected that one employee (with an hourly wage of $41.67footnote 18 per RO will spend 1.75 hours annually, starting in 2026, to accompany TC inspectors.

Furthermore, each RO will need to pay a fee of $495footnote 19 per page to publish their fees in Part I of the Canada Gazette. It is assumed that PTMS and ALERT will update their fee publication twice in a 10-year period (2026 and 2031), while ECRC and WCRC will update their fees four times in a 10-year period (2026, 2029, 2032 and 2035). It is also assumed that each publication per RO will require five pages (including the French version), and that ROs will need four hours to fill and submit a publishing form for each publication.

Additionally, should the submission of the ROs’ response plans after a significant change take place in the previous year under the regulatory scenario, ROs will incur a minimal cost due to the utilization of discount rates.

As a result, ROs are expected to bear a total cost of $80,944.

2. Incident notifications

In order to confirm ROs’ capacity to respond to a ship-source oil spill, ROs will have to notify TC of their involvement in both non-ship-source oil spills and ship-source oil spills, which, assuming that notifications will be done via email, would require 15 minutes per spill. Based on key assumptions, it is estimated that WCMRC will respond to a total of 76 ship-source oil spills,footnote 20 while the other three ROs will each respond to 49 ship-source oil spillsfootnote 21 over the analytical time frame. As mentioned in the key assumptions, it is further estimated that all the ROs would each respond to 4 non-ship-source spills. This is expected to result in a total cost of $8,317.

3. Exercise programs

It is expected that, in each three-year period, ECRC will design and conduct two additional tier 3 exercises at a total cost of $30,000footnote 22 (undiscounted), one in the first year and the other in the second yearfootnote 23 (7 total additional exercises across the analytical time frame), and will need two hours in 2026 to update the response plan to reflect these additional exercises. Additionally, each RO will need four hours in 2026, as well as 30 minutes per year thereafter, to add the description of the two-hour activation procedure to their response plans.

In total, the changes to the exercise programs are expected to result in a cost of $78,580 to ROs.

Costs to OHF Operators
1. Minimal oil spill response procedures and equipment requirements

It is estimated that five OHF operators north of 60°N will each need 15 minutes in 2025 to reflect in their plans the procedures in place to respond to minimal oil spill scenarios (no changes to such information are expected to occur again across the analytical time frame). Moreover, these OHF operators would incur a cost of $2,250footnote 24 (undiscounted) in 2025 and 2035, respectively, to meet the minimum on-site equipment requirement in the Regulations. As a result, affected OHF operators are expected to incur a total cost of $17,055.

2. Additional information

Operators of 53 OHFs north of 60°N will need to spend 40 minutes in 2025, as well as 15 minutes per year thereafter, to identify in their plans the position titles of personnel authorized to implement the pollution emergency plan. In addition, each of these operators will need to spend 15 minutes accompanying TC inspectors, as they will need to review and verify this additional piece of information during each inspection, following the three-year inspection frequency as follows: 18 OHFs in the first year, 18 OHFs in the second year and 17 OHFs in the third year.

Furthermore, each operator of the 224 OHFs will need 2 hours in 2025, as well as 30 minutes per year thereafter, to update their plans to include (i) the frequency of personnel training in their emergency plans and (ii) the position titles of training provided in the emergency and prevention plans. Similarly, all operators will need 1 hour in 2025, as well as 30 minutes per year thereafter, to include in their training records the position titles of training provided to personnel and an additional 45 minutes, per inspection, to accompany TC inspectors to review and verify the information related to personnel training in the plans and training records. All OHF operators will also need 15 minutes annually to reflect and review their exercise schedule.

It is assumed that every year 78 OHF operators will need 20 minutes to draft and submit an email notifying TC of no significant updates in their plans. It should be noted that the remaining 146 OHF operators will require the same resources to submit the updated plans to TC if a significant event occurs under the baseline and regulatory scenarios. However, should the submission take place in the previous year under the regulatory scenario, these operators will incur a minimal cost due to the utilization of discount rates.

As a result, operators of OHFs are expected to incur a total cost of $251,868.

3. Incident reports

It is estimated that 20 oil pollution post-incident reports will be developed every year. Therefore, two OHF employees will need 16 hours in total to develop one report, and one employee will need 1 hour to prepare for the submission to TC. Therefore, the total cost associated with incident reports is estimated to be $187,551.

4. Exercise program

Eleven OHF operators in remote locations, who do not currently conduct the exercise schedule in their plans voluntarily, will need to conduct one exercise at an average cost of $12,500footnote 25 (undiscounted) in the three-year periods as follows: four exercises in the first year, four exercises in the second year and three exercises in the third year. It is assumed that these 11 OHF operators will need 15 minutes per exercise to notify TC via email that the exercises will be implemented.

Additionally, each of the 224 OHF operators will be required to develop and submit a post-exercise report, which will require them to spend 10 hours and 5 minutes, respectively. During the three-year period, it is assumed that 75 OHF operators will develop and submit a post-exercise report in the first year, 75 operators in the second year, and 74 operators in the third year of each three-year period. This is expected to result in a total cost of $790,111 over the analytical period.

Costs to the Government of Canada

It is expected that all costs presented below will be incurred by TC. However, it should be noted that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), which oversees the Canada Gazette, may incur a minimal cost not monetized in this analysis, as the fees charged by PSPC to publish in the Canada Gazette, while expected to cover most of the associated internal expenses, may not cover the total cost (see the “Baseline and regulatory scenarios” section for details).

1. Additional detailed information

One TC employee at the GT-05 level will need 8.25 hours in 2026, as well as 6.5 hours per year thereafter, to review additional information added to each RO’s response plan, as well as verify the certification of contracted vessels and personnel training records during an inspection. In addition, the employee will need five hours in 2026 to review the information on the nature of vessel traffic per ARP. However, from 2027 onwards, the employee will allocate three hours per ARP for ECRC to review if any information has been provided, but one hour per ARP for other ROs, given that ECRC has the largest GAR and sub-areas.

For OHFs, during inspections, one employee at the GT-05 level will need an additional 15 minutes per OHF to review and verify new information provided by 53 OHFs north of 60°N in their plans, as well as 45 minutes per OHF to review additional training information in plans and training records for all 224 OHFs, and 15 minutes per OHF to review their exercise schedule (refer to the “Baseline and regulatory scenarios” section above for inspection frequency).footnote 26 Also, under the Regulations, one employee at the GT-05 level will need 10 minutes to review each of the 78 annual notifications submitted by OHF operators informing TC of no significant updates in their plans.

Therefore, TC is expected to incur a total cost of $140,306.

2. Incident notifications and reports

One TC employee at the GT-07 level will need to spend 10 minutes to review one oil spill notification submitted by ROs, regardless of if they are ship-sourced or non-shipped sourced spills. In addition, one employee at the GT-05 level will require 1 hour to review each of the post-incident reports submitted by OHF operators.footnote 26 Therefore, TC is expected to incur a total cost of $12,826.

3. Exercise programs

Changes to ROs’ exercise programs will require TC to perform additional activities as follows:

The changes to exercise programs for OHF operators will require one employee at the GT-05 level to spend 7.5 hours to attend each of the additional exercises from the 11 OHFs discussed above that do not currently conduct exercises, 15 minutes reviewing each exercise notification submitted by these 11 OHF operators and 20 minutes to review each of the post-exercise reports submitted by operators of all 224 OHFs.

As a result, it is estimated that TC will incur a total cost of $122,616.

4. Minimal oil spill response procedures

It is assumed that in 2025, one employee at the GT-05 level will spend 15 minutes per OHF reviewing minimal oil spill response procedures for the five operators north of 60°N discussed above. Therefore, TC is expected to incur a total cost of $71.

In additional to the Government costs discussed above, TC will also incur a minimal cost to notify ROs, OHF operators, Indigenous organizations, and other stakeholder groups of the Regulations through already established regular communications (see the “Implementation” section for details), and to notify TC enforcement officers of the new designated violations (see baseline and regulatory scenarios section for details).

Cost-benefit statement
Table 1: Monetized costs (present value)
Impacted stakeholder Description of cost 2025 2026 Annual average:
2027 to 2034		 2035 Total
(present value)		 Annualized value
TC Review additional information $8,716 $24,289 $12,292 $8,961 $140,306 $17,487
Review information on incidents $1,243 $1,497 $1,154 $853 $12,826 $1,598
Verify exercise and two-hour activation compliance $3,738 $20,252 $11,271 $8,454 $122,616 $15,282
Review minimum oil spill response procedures $71 $0 $0 $0 $71 $9
Subtotal $13,768 $46,038 $24,717 $18,268 $275,819 $34,376
ROs Capture additional information $0 $37,329 $4,801 $5,206 $80,944 $10,088
Provide incident reports $0 $964 $838 $651 $8,317 $1,037
Exercises and two-hour activation $0 $16,121 $6,838 $7,752 $78,580 $9,794
Subtotal $0 $54,414 $12,477 $13,609 $167,841 $20,918
OHF operators Minimum oil spill procedure and equipment $11,336 $0 $0 $5,719 $17,055 $2,126
Capture additional information $58,970 $25,428 $19,205 $13,831 $251,868 $31,391
Provide incident reports $23,375 $21,846 $16,306 $11,883 $187,551 $23,375
Exercise program $102,044 $95,368 $67,603 $51,874 $790,111 $98,474
Subtotal $195,725 $142,642 $103,114 $83,307 $1,246,585 $155,365
All stakeholders Total costs $209,493 $243,094 $140,308 $115,184 $1,690,245 $210,660
Table 2: Monetized benefits (present value)
Impacted stakeholder Description of benefit 2025 2026 Annual average:
2027 to 2034		 2035 Total
(present value)		 Annualized value
Government Review less information in OHF operators’ plans $5,579 $5,214 $3,892 $2,836 $44,763 $5,579
OHF operators Capture less information $65,470 $61,187 $37,887 $27,610 $435,781 $54,313
All stakeholders Total benefits $71,049 $66,401 $41,779 $30,446 $480,544 $59,892
Table 3 : Summary of monetized costs and benefits (present value)
Impacts 2025 2026 Annual average: 2027 to 2034 2035 Total
(present value)		 Annualized value
Total costs $209,493 $243,094 $140,308 $115,184 $1,690,245 $210,660
Total benefits $71,049 $66,401 $41,779 $30,446 $480,544 $59,892
NET COST $138,444 $176,693 $98,529 $84,738 $1,209,701 $150,768
Qualitative impacts
Positive impacts

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lensfootnote 28 concluded that the Regulations will impact small businesses. Based on the available information and TC experts, two ROs (PTMS and ALERT) are small businesses. As previously discussed, these ROs will be required to provide additional information in their response plans, present certain new information to TC during inspections, notify TC of both ship-sourced and non-ship-sourced oil spill incidents, conduct an additional exercise and publish their fees in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Using the same methodology and assumptions on time and wage rates, presented above, it is estimated that the Regulations will result in an incremental total cost of $36,088 for small businesses, or an annualized cost of $2,249 per business, between 2025 and 2035.

The requirements established under the Regulations are needed to support marine safety and environmental protection from oil spills and to ensure that ROs have the capacity to provide oil spill response services for which they are certified. Offering flexibilities to ALERT and PTMS with respect to the equipment and procedural requirements could lead to these ROs not having sufficient capacity to respond to spills of up to 10 000 tonnes. Providing flexibility with respect to the exercise program requirements, such as in the number and type of exercises to be conducted, could be considered unfair by the larger ROs, given that all ROs are certified up to the same capacity. The exercises are also highly important in evaluating the effectiveness of an RO’s response plan and the RO’s readiness to implement it.

For these reasons, flexibilities in the Regulations for small business ROs will not be provided.

Small business lens summary
Costs
Administrative or compliance Description of cost Present value Annualized value
Administrative Notify TC of ship-source and non-ship-source oil pollution incidents and show personnel training records to TC. $4,917 $613
Compliance Capture additional information $31,171 $3,885
Total Total costs $36,088 $4,498
Net Cost (present value)
Amount Present value Annualized value
Net cost on all impacted small businesses $36,088 $4,498
Average net cost on each impacted small business $18,044 $2,249

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies, since there will be a net incremental decrease in administrative burden on business, and an existing regulatory title will be repealed. The Regulations will repeal the ROR and amalgamate it into the ERR. As a result, a net of one title out is counted under the rule.

The 4 ROs and the 224 OHF operators will incur an increase in administrative costs. As previously discussed, ROs will be required to do the following administrative activities: (i) present proof that contractors can perform their tasks and have the needed certifications, and the personnel training records; (ii) notify TC of non-ship-source and ship-source oil pollution incidents. With regards to OHF operators, they will need to submit their incident reports to TC, notify TC when there are no significant updates to their plans, notify TC of the implementation of their exercises, and accompany TC inspectors when they review the following information during inspections: (i) the post-exercise reports; (ii) the position title of employees authorized to implement emergency plans and (iii) the additional training information in their plans and training records.

The Regulations will also remove some administrative burden for ROs and OHF operators. As previously discussed, the Regulations will no longer require ROs to submit four copies of their response plans to TC; instead, one copy will be required, which is expected to be in a digital format, aligning with current practice for ROs. It is assumed that one employee per RO will require eight minutes to submit the plan digitately to TC.footnote 29 For the purpose of the one-for-one rule, it is assumed that, under the baseline scenario, ROs submit four physical copies of their response plans to TC, which would result in (i) 532 printed pages annually per ROfootnote 30 ($0.07 per pagefootnote 31; (ii) four binders per RO to organize each printed copy;footnote 32 (iii) one flat rate box annually per RO to mail the copies to TCfootnote 33; and (iv) one employee per RO requiring 2 hoursfootnote 34 to prepare for the submission to TC. Also, the Regulations will remove the administrative requirement for OHF operators to provide in their plans detailed information found in training records.

Using the methodology developed in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations and assumptions and data discussed above, it is estimated that the Regulations would result in an annualized administrative cost of $3,406 to businesses (or an annualized cost of $14.94 per business), and an annualized administrative saving of $10,119 (or an annualized saving of $44.38 per business). Therefore, the net impact annualized administrative burden cost savings would be $6,714 (or an annualized administrative burden cost saving of $29.45 per business, present value in 2012 Canadian dollar, discounted to the base year of 2012 with a 7% discount rate for a 10-year period between 2025 and 2034).footnote 4

It is important to note that the administrative burden cost savings for ROs estimated in this section are recorded for tracking purposes as per the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, but are not included in the cost-benefit analysis presented above. This is because, in practice, the impact on ROs’ resource allocation has already taken place. ROs have already realized the cost savings related to a 2019 amendment to the Canada Transportation Act that provides: “[f]or the purposes of an Act of Parliament that the Minister administers or enforces, a requirement under that Act to provide a signature or to provide information in a paper-based format is met if (a) an electronic version of the signature or information is provided by electronic means that are made available or specified by the Minister […].”

In addition, OHF operators will have the option to notify TC of oil transfer changes less than 180 days in advance of such changes, by submitting a request with a rationale for the shortened justification period. Although the additional time and resources for providing the rationale would meet the definition of administrative burden, it is not considered “incremental,” as there continues to be the option of waiting and not having to provide the rationale (which is assumed at 100% uptake for the purposes of the one-for-one rule).

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

Canada is a signatory to several international conventions, including the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), and the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The conventions include obligations for signatory countries aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships as well as a commitment from signatories to establish measures for dealing with pollution incidents, either nationally or in co-operation with other countries. Under the CSA 2001, most aspects of these conventions have been adopted. The Regulations will maintain alignment with these international conventions.

Similar oil pollution preparedness regimes have been implemented in other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, to ensure vessels carrying oil and OHF operators have oil pollution response plans. In both countries, ROs are certified for varying response capacities, and it is the responsibility of the vessel or OHF operator to ensure that they have a contract in place with an appropriately accredited RO. While the United Kingdom requires OHF operators, as well as harbours, to have contracts in place as part of their contingency plans, OHF operators in the United States have the option to maintain their own resources to provide the required response capacity instead of contracting out to an RO.

The Minister of Transport is the responsible minister for the regulation and oversight of the marine pollution regime, including oil spill preparedness. Pursuant to the CSA 2001, the Minister of Transport has the authority to make recommendations for regulations concerning the classification of OHF operators, the certification of ROs, and the oil spill preparedness requirements for these entities. The Minister also has the authority to recommend regulations with respect to an OHF operator’s oil transfer operations to and from vessels. Compliance with the Regulations will continue to be monitored and enforced by TC.

The Regulations will not impact the mandate of any other federal department. While the CCG has a formal role and authorities during an actual ship-source oil pollution incident, its focus is on response operations at the time of an oil spill incident. Its authorities relate to monitoring and overseeing response operations to a specific incident, as well as issuing directions to ensure appropriate response actions are taken. The Regulations will not prescribe specific response actions to be taken by ROs or OHF operators but rather ensure that they have the appropriate capacity and readiness to respond to any type of ship-source oil pollution incident within their areas of responsibility. Therefore, the Regulations do not relate directly to, or impact, the CCG’s authorities with respect to marine oil pollution response.

Environment and Climate Change Canada’s role with respect to ship-source oil pollution incidents primarily relates to providing science-based advice to the CCG to help monitor a potential or actual oil spill; supporting response decision-making during an incident; and supporting clean-up and recovery of the marine environment and coastlines after a response operation is completed.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, and the TC Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013), the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process was followed for these Regulations and a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental and economic assessment is not required. The scan found that the Regulations will have a positive environmental effect by contributing to the prevention and mitigation of environmental damage in the event of an oil pollution incident. However, the impacts are not expected to be significant, since the ROs already undertake many of the new requirements to varying degrees on a voluntary basis.

Gender-based analysis plus

The Regulations will help to ensure that ROs have procedures in place to protect and treat important cultural, environmental, and socio-economic areas, including waterways for local coastal communities used for transportation, local food stocks, and marine resources key to local/regional economic development, and to access to traditional sites by Indigenous peoples. As a result, the Regulations are expected to be of particular benefit to local and Indigenous communities in coastal areas.

Strengthening the exercise program requirements for OHF operators and requiring OHF operators north of 60°N to maintain minimum levels of response equipment is expected to particularly benefit northern communities where these facilities are located.

Other than the above-noted benefits, the Regulations are not expected to result in differential impacts on the basis of identity factors such as race, sex, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standard

Implementation

The regulatory provisions relating to OHF operators (sections 2 through 8 and 12) come into force upon publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. Any changes required to an OHF operator’s plans can be made by the time it submits its next annual plan update. The regulatory provisions with respect to definitions and ROs (sections 1, 9 through 11 and 13) will come into force one year after they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to provide regulated parties sufficient time to modify their response plans and business practices to comply with the changes. ROs will need to have updated their plans by the time they submit the annual update of their plans to the Minister following this one-year transition period.

ROs and OHF operators will be notified by TC via email once the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. This email will also include a link to the updated Environmental Response Standards document, which will be published concurrently with the Regulations. This communication will outline the timelines for when they need to be in compliance with new requirements. A similar email will be shared with Indigenous organizations and stakeholders such as shipping associations.

The costs to TC associated with implementing the Regulations, such as additional items to be included in inspections, will be managed within TC’s existing resources.

Compliance and enforcement

Compliance will be monitored and assessed by TC through existing measures, including inspections and reviewing the ROs’ response plans and the OHF operators’ prevention and emergency plans.

Non-compliance with the Regulations will be addressed through existing measures. Various requirements for ROs and OHF operators under the CSA 2001 and certain requirements for OHF operators under the ERR are already designated as violations under the Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations and are subject to AMPs of up to $250,000 per violation. The Regulations will further enable the administration of AMPs for ROs’ non-compliance with the requirements to update and submit updated response plans and to notify TC when they respond to an incident that could affect their capacity to respond to another oil pollution incident for which they are certified. The process for administering an AMP for violating these requirements will be the same as that for existing violations.

ROs will be required to demonstrate their compliance with the Regulations as a condition of being certified. TC will work with the RO to try to resolve any issues or concerns that arise during the certification process. The Minister of Transport will also maintain the authority to suspend or cancel an RO’s certificate. However, this measure will be reserved for very serious cases of non-compliance where the RO has not adequately demonstrated that it would be willing and/or able to bring itself into compliance with the Regulations.

Service standards

The current 90-day service standard for TC to review an RO’s response plan after it is submitted will remain the same, as indicated in the Environmental Response Standards. An OHF operator’s prevention and emergency plans are not required to be approved by the Minister, and therefore, no service standard applies to the review of its plans.

Contact

Environmental Response Regulations
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower B, AOER
112 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: EnvResRegs-RegsIntEnv@tc.gc.ca