Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Fisheries Act: SOR/2026-107

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 160, Number 12

Registration
SOR/2026-107 June 4, 2026

FISHERIES ACT

P.C. 2026-547 June 4, 2026

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, makes the annexed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Fisheries Act under subsections 36(5) and 38(9)footnote a and section 43footnote b of the Fisheries Act footnote c.

Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Fisheries Act

Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations

1 Paragraph 2(3)(b) of Schedule IV.1 to the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations footnote 1 is amended by striking out “or” at the end of subparagraph (i), by adding “or” at the end of subparagraph (ii) and by adding the following after subparagraph (ii):

Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations

2 The definition point de rejet final in subsection 1(1) of the French version of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations footnote 2 is replaced by the following:

point de rejet final
Le point de rejet de l’effluent d’une mine qui est repérable et au-delà duquel la qualité de l’effluent n’est plus assujettie au contrôle de l’exploitant de la mine. (final discharge point)

3 Section 4.1 of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

4.1 L’alinĂ©a 4(1)c) ne s’applique pas s’il est dĂ©terminĂ© que l’effluent prĂ©sente une lĂ©talitĂ© aiguĂ« conformĂ©ment aux modes opĂ©ratoires visĂ©s aux sections 5 ou 6 de la mĂ©thode de rĂ©fĂ©rence SPE 1/RM/14 lorsque le propriĂ©taire ou l’exploitant d’une mine effectue l’essai Ă  la frĂ©quence prĂ©vue au paragraphe 14(1), Ă  moins qu’un autre essai de dĂ©termination de la lĂ©talitĂ© aiguĂ« indique que l’effluent prĂ©sente une lĂ©talitĂ© aiguĂ«.

4 (1) The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 4.1:

4.2 Paragraph 4(1)(c) does not apply in the case where the effluent is determined to be acutely lethal in accordance with the procedures set out in section 5 or 6 of Reference Method STB 1/RM/60 when the owner or operator of a mine is testing at the frequency prescribed in subsection 14(1) or 15(1), unless the effluent is determined to be acutely lethal in accordance with any other acute lethality test.

(2) Section 4.2 of the Regulations is repealed.

5 Paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

6 Paragraph 13(6)(a) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

7 (1) Section 16 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the owner or operator of a mine shall not reduce the frequency of conducting the acute lethality test referred to in section 14.4.

(2) Subsection 16(1.1) of the Regulations is repealed.

8 Subsection 19.1(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) If the analytical result from any test conducted under section 12 or 13 is less than the method detection limit used for that test, the test result shall be considered to be equal to one half of the method detection limit used for the purpose of calculating the monthly mean concentration.

9 Paragraph 21(2)(g) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

10 The portion of section 23 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

23 Any report or information that is required to be provided to the Minister of the Environment under these Regulations shall be submitted electronically in the format provided by the Department of the Environment, but the report or information shall be submitted in writing if

11 (1) The portion of subsection 24(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

24 (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall notify an inspector, fishery officer or authority prescribed by any regulations made under the Act without delay if the results of the effluent monitoring tests conducted under section 12 or 13, subsection 14(1) or section 15 or 16 indicate that

(2) Subsection 24(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The owner or operator shall provide a written report of the test results to the inspector, fishery officer or authority prescribed by any regulations made under the Act within 30 days after the tests have been completed.

12 Paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

13 (1) Subsection 30(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) The owner or operator shall complete the emergency response plan and have it available for inspection no later than 60 days after the day on which the mine becomes subject to these Regulations.

(2) Subsection 30(5) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5) If a mine has not been subject to the requirements of this section for more than one year, a new emergency response plan shall be prepared and completed no later than 60 days after the day on which the mine ceases to be a recognized closed mine.

14 Subsection 31.1(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Despite subsection (1), the owner or operator of a mine is not required to conduct the tests if they notify an inspector, fishery officer or authority prescribed by any regulations made under the Act without delay, that the deposit is an acutely lethal effluent.

15 The portion of the definition effect on the benthic invertebrate community in subsection 1(1) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

effect on the benthic invertebrate community
means a statistical difference between data relating to the indicators referred to in subparagraph 12(1)(e)(ii) and paragraph 12(1)(f) from a study respecting the benthic invertebrate community conducted in

16 Subsection 4(4) of Schedule 5 to the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) The recording of the concentration of mercury referred to in paragraph (1)(d) may be discontinued if that concentration is less than 0.10 µg/L in 12 consecutive samples collected under subsection (3).

17 Subsection 5(2) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

18 Subsection 6(1) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

6 (1) The sublethal toxicity tests shall be conducted on the species referred to in subsections 5(1) and (2) in two calendar quarters per year for three years and each test shall be conducted on an aliquot of an effluent sample collected at least one month after the collection of the sample used in the previous tests.

19 Subparagraph 7(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

20 (1) The portion of paragraph 9(1)(a) of Schedule 5 to the English version of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(2) The portion of paragraph 9(1)(b) of Schedule 5 to the English version of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(3) Subparagraph 9(1)(c)(ii) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Subparagraph 9(1)(d)(iii) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

21 Paragraphs 12(1)(h) and (i) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations

22 Section 1 of the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations footnote 3 is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

operator
means any person who operates, has control or custody of or is in charge of a wastewater system. (exploitant)

23 Section 45.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Authorized deposit

45.1 A holder of a temporary bypass authorization in respect of a wastewater system is authorized to deposit effluent containing a deleterious substance prescribed in section 5 if

24 Schedule 4 to the Regulations is replaced by the Schedule 4 set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

Coming into Force

25 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

(2) Subsections 4(2) and 7(2) come into force on the 10th anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are registered.

SCHEDULE

(Section 24)

SCHEDULE 4

(Section 30)

Transitional Authorization

[Name and address of owner or operator]

in respect of [name and address of wastewater system]

(a) is (are) authorized as of [the date of issuance referred to in subsection 26(2) of the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations] to deposit effluent that contains the deleterious substances set out below until [expiry date]footnote 4 from [identify the final discharge point or, in the case of a fictional consolidated wastewater system referred to in section 4 of those Regulations, identify the final discharge point for each of the original wastewater systems] .

Deleterious Substance Average Concentration table 3 note a Maximum Concentration
CBOD matter mg/L of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand not applicable
suspended solids (SS) mg/L not applicable
un-ionized ammonia (NH3) not applicable mg/L, as nitrogen (N) at 15°C ± 1°C

Table 3 note(s)

Table 3 note a

Average concentration over the averaging period determined in accordance with subsection 6(2) of the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations.

Return to table 3 note a referrer

(b) is (are) authorized as of [the date of issuance referred to in subsection 26(2) of the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations] to deposit effluent whose average concentration of total residual chlorine does not exceed 0.02 mg/L until [expiry date]* from [identify the final discharge point or, in the case of a fictional consolidated wastewater system referred to in section 4 of those Regulations, identify the final discharge point for each of the original wastewater systems]  if chlorine, or one of its compounds, was used in the treatment of wastewater in the wastewater system.

IMPORTANT: Please refer to sections 28 and 29 of the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations for the conditions and compliance requirements related to the authorization. Please also take note that this authorization may be revoked under section 32 of those Regulations.

Authorization Officer:

[Signature] Date:

[Name]

[Title]

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: The Government of Canada has committed to modernizing its regulations. In support of this commitment, Environment and Climate Change Canada is advancing targeted regulatory amendments through an omnibus package aimed at supporting economic competitiveness within important industrial sectors. These changes are designed to provide flexibility and clarity on various regulatory requirements affecting the metal and diamond mining sector, pulp and paper sector, and municipal wastewater sector.

Description: The amendments focus on three regulations: the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER), the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (PPER), and the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER). In total, three categories of amendments are being introduced; one targets the MDMER specifically; one targets the MDMER and PPER jointly; and one targets the MDMER and WSER jointly.

The amendments include the following: providing regulatory flexibility to MDMER-regulated parties in the implementation of acute lethality testing in marine environments; providing an additional standard test method for sublethal toxicity testing required for environmental effects monitoring under the MDMER and the PPER; and addressing inconsistencies in the regulatory text of the MDMER and WSER to improve clarity, implementation, and enforceability.

Rationale: In line with the Government of Canada’s commitment to regulatory modernization, the primary rationale for the amendments is to improve regulatory effectiveness. The amendments clarify regulatory requirements for implicated industrial sectors under the MDMER, PPER, and WSER. Supported by stakeholders and the affected Indigenous organizations, the changes will address outstanding concerns with regulatory flexibility, do not impose new costs, and maintain environmental protection. Overall, industry stakeholders are expected to benefit from increased flexibility, decreased compliance costs, and simplified reporting.

Issues

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC or the Department) has identified various regulatory requirements that can be updated to better support compliance in the mining, pulp and paper, and wastewater treatment sectors without compromising the protection of the environment and human health.

The Department is addressing these through the Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Fisheries Act.

Objective

The objective of these amendments is to improve regulatory effectiveness for Canadian businesses. This will be accomplished through amendments under the MDMER, PPER, and WSER, which collectively will address regulatory and implementation challenges related to existing testing requirements, and improve clarity and enforceability of the regulations.

These amendments align with commitments from the Government of Canada’s Red Tape Review, by reducing red tape and increasing flexibility while continuing to protect the environment.

Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations

Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations

Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations

AMENDMENT 1: AMENDMENTS TO THE METAL AND DIAMOND MINING EFFLUENT REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE ACARTIA TONSA TEST METHOD

Issues

The Acartia tonsa (A. tonsa) acute lethality testfootnote 5 requirement came into effect in 2021 as a condition to be met in order for a regulated mine proponent to have the authority to deposit effluent containing deleterious substances in water frequented by fish. One mine proponent, Agnico Eagle Mines (AEM), has raised concerns about its technical feasibility, predictability, and economic implications for their two mines located in Nunavut: Meliadine and Hope Bay. Although the Department’s scientific assessment confirms that the method is robust, AEM has pointed to several technical challenges, such as variability in test results, the use of low-salinity cultures, and the method’s suitability for certain effluent types and receiving environments. AEM maintains that the existing requirement to pass an A. tonsa acute lethality test creates both operational and investment uncertainty, particularly in relation to long-term water management planning in northern operations.

This amendment is intended to provide regulatory flexibility by removing the requirement to pass the A. tonsa acute lethality test while requiring regulated mines to continue conducting the test and monitoring and reporting the results. This approach will allow sufficient experience and data to be gathered on the test while supporting upcoming investment decisions at the Hope Bay mine.

Background

The Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish unless authorized by regulation. The MDMER authorizes the deposit of effluent that contains prescribed deleterious substances from metal and diamond mines provided stringent requirements are met, including limits on effluent quality and the requirement that effluent must not be acutely lethal to fish or aquatic invertebrates.

In 2015, as part of the 10-year review of the MDMER, AEM requested that the Department develop acute lethality test methods for the deposit of saline effluent discharged into marine environments. In response, between 2015 and 2019, the Department developed two acute lethality test methods: one using a fish species (threespine stickleback), and one using a marine invertebrate (A. tonsa). The fish test method was finalized in time to be incorporated into the 2018 amendments to the MDMER, while the A. tonsa test method was completed in 2019.

Prior to incorporating the A. tonsa test method into the Regulations, the Department engaged with Indigenous organizations, including the Kitikmeot Inuit Association (KitIA) and Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA), as well as the mining sector and other interested parties. No concerns were raised by AEM, the Inuit organizations, or the Mining Association of Canada (MAC) during these consultations. In June 2021, the Department published final amendments to the MDMER introducing the requirement for acute lethality testing using A. tonsa for deposits of saline effluent to marine environments. Currently, only two mines in Canada are subject to this test, both of which are located in Nunavut and owned and operated by AEM: Meliadine and Hope Bay.

Since the coming into force of these amendments, AEM has raised a number of technical and economic concerns related to the implementation of the A. tonsa test method, including the scientific basis of the test method, method reliability, implementation costs and a perceived lack of consultation on the test. The Department responded on March 17, 2022, outlining the Department’s scientific assessment, concluding that the test method is robust, reliable, and ready for implementation, citing relevant peer-reviewed literature. The KitIA and KIA later echoed AEM’s concerns and noted potential implications for water management under existing agreements with Inuit communities.

Objective

The objective of the amendments is to provide regulatory flexibility to support the implementation of the A. tonsa acute lethality test while maintaining oversight of environmental performance under the MDMER.

The amendments also aim to ensure that the Department continues to receive monitoring information through reporting requirements, review test results and test reports to assess effective implementation of the test and to allow regulated parties to build confidence and experience in conducting the test method. By maintaining monthly monitoring and reporting during the 10-year period, the amendments preserve environmental oversight and transparency.

Description

Currently, mines depositing saline effluent into marine environments must demonstrate that their effluent is not acutely lethal to A. tonsa in order to maintain their authority to deposit effluent under section 4 of the Regulations.

Under the amendments, a passing result for the A. tonsa acute lethality test will not be a regulatory requirement for a period of 10 years, but the test will continue to be used for monitoring and reporting purposes. During this period, mines will be required to conduct the test once per month using the existing reference method and to report their results to the Department in the same manner as they do today. If effluent fails the test, indicating it is acutely lethal to A. tonsa, the mine would not lose its authority to deposit effluent under section 4 of the Regulations. In this context, the test results will be used for data collection and analysis, rather than for compliance determination. In addition, the A. tonsa acute lethality test will be exempt from section 16 of the MDMER, which otherwise allows for reduced frequency when results consistently meet the pass criteria. Therefore, regulated mines will be required to continue monthly A. tonsa acute lethality testing, regardless of results, to establish a robust and reliable data set.

The amendments will provide regulated mines with additional time to generate data, refine treatment processes, and improve predictability in test performance, while maintaining monthly monitoring and reporting obligations. This amendment also applies to any future mine owner or operator that discharges saline effluent into marine environments.

At the end of the 10-year period, passing the A. tonsa acute lethality test will again become a regulatory requirement, requiring mines to pass the test to retain their authority to deposit effluent under section 4 of the MDMER.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Targeted consultations were undertaken for these amendments with Indigenous Peoples, territorial government and industry.

Currently, these amendments apply to two mines, Meliadine and Hope Bay, located within regions in Nunavut where the KIA and the KitIA, respectively, hold responsibilities under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) to represent Inuit interests related to land, water, and resource management. As the designated Inuit organizations for their regions, KIA and KitIA were the two Indigenous organizations targeted for consultations.

The Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) and the mining industry (AEM and the MAC) were also engaged and consulted.

On October 28, 2025, the Department sent the above organizations a consultation notification in order to engage on the amendments. The notification included a fact sheet describing the proposed amendments and included an invitation to meet with Department representatives to discuss this regulatory initiative. The Department provided stakeholders and Indigenous organizations with a deadline of November 28, 2025, to submit comments or questions on the amendments.

On November 28, 2025, the MAC submitted their comments expressing their support for the amendments to the A. tonsa test.

On December 1, 2025, the KitIA said they had no comments on the amendments to the MDMER. The KIA, NTI and the Government of Nunavut had not provided comments.

On December 15, 2025, AEM responded, indicating that it is aligned with and supports the proposed change, and that it had no further comments or concerns.

​​On December 16, 2025, ECCC sent notifications to all interested parties to conclude the consultation period for these amendments to the MDMER.

The consulted organizations have expressed their support in written submissions to the Department prior to the formal consultations that took place, summarized below.

Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA)

On May 27, 2024, the KIA submitted a letter raising concerns about the application of the A. tonsa acute lethality test to saline effluent from the Meliadine mine. The KIA questioned the consistency and regional applicability of the test method, noting that Nunavut’s marine environment differs significantly from the conditions in which the test was developed. It also highlighted potential implications for water management at Meliadine Lake — which is of cultural significance to the local Inuit communities, including how uncertainties in test performance could affect existing agreements between the mine and the local Inuit community. The KIA indicated that it seeks to minimize risks associated with potential discharges into Meliadine Lake in the event that effluent cannot be deposited into the marine environment due to a failure of the A. tonsa test. The KIA underscored that, as the designated Inuit organization under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, it has a responsibility to ensure that regulatory decisions reflect northern realities and support the protection of the region’s waters.

Kitikmeot Inuit Association (KitIA)

On April 23, 2024, the KitIA submitted a letter to ECCC expressing strong support for AEM’s concerns regarding the A. tonsa test requirement. KitIA noted that A. tonsa is not indigenous to Nunavut’s marine environment, raising questions about the relevance and reliability of using this species to assess local ecological risk. The Association emphasized that the test appears to have been adopted without sufficient regional testing and may lead to enforcement outcomes that do not reflect actual environmental conditions at Hope Bay. KitIA encouraged ECCC to work collaboratively with Inuit organizations and AEM to develop a predictable, scientifically grounded method appropriate for Nunavut.

Government of Nunavut

On July 16, 2025, the acting Deputy Minister of the Department of Community Services, Government of Nunavut (GN), sent a letter to ECCC with concerns about the broader implications of the A. tonsa test for mining operations in the territory. GN emphasized the need for regulatory requirements that are regionally appropriate, scientifically justified, and reflective of northern marine conditions. The submission also underscored the importance of supporting responsible economic development while ensuring strong environmental protection and expressed support for a timely resolution to the issues related to the A. tonsa test.

Sarliaq Holdings (industry representative)

Sarliaq Holdings submitted a letter to ECCC outlining significant industry concerns regarding the suitability, predictability, and operational implications of the A. tonsa test for mines in Nunavut. The company noted that uncertainties in test performance create regulatory and investment risks for resource projects and may impede long-term planning and economic development in the region. Sarliaq urged the federal government to reassess the requirement and adopt a more reliable, regionally relevant, and collaborative approach to acute lethality testing for saline effluent.

ECCC Response

All parties expressed uncertainty about how the test would perform in northern environmental conditions and how this uncertainty could affect regulatory compliance, long-term water management planning, and investment decision-making. The amendments would help address these concerns by providing regulatory flexibility and supporting confidence in the test method over the long term.

Exemption from prepublication

The amendments address long-standing regulatory and implementation challenges related to existing testing requirements. The mining industry, the Government of Nunavut and Inuit organizations have been engaged regarding these matters and have expressed support for the amendments. Inuit organizations communicated in recent correspondence to the Department their interest in a timely resolution to this regulatory issue. Therefore, the amendments were exempted from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

Given that the amendments apply to two mine sites in Nunavut, Meliadine and Hope Bay, the consultation process takes into account the requirements of the NLCA. Both mines are located within regions where the KIA and the KitIA, respectively, hold responsibilities under the NLCA to represent Inuit interests related to land, water, and resource management. As the Designated Inuit Organizations for their regions, KIA and KitIA represent key rights-holders and primary consultation partners for any regulatory changes that may affect water management or environmental monitoring associated with mining operations in the area.

ECCC met with KIA, NTI and the Government of Nunavut on September 26, 2025, to inform them of the decision to move forward with amendments and the upcoming consultations. Inuit organizations were included in the targeted notification distributed on October 28, 2025. The notification provided all parties with an opportunity to submit written comments or request a meeting with ECCC by November 28, 2025. It also included a fact sheet, translated into Inuktitut, outlining the proposed amendments. On November 4, 2025, the Ministry of the Environment of Nunavut responded and indicated that it is currently on caretaker mode and delegated the matter to the Deputy Minister of Environment. However, the Department did not receive any comments.

On December 1, 2025, the KitIA said they had no comments on the proposed amendments to the MDMER. The KIA and NTI did not provide any comments on this specific amendment.

On December 16, 2025, the Department notified the consulted parties that consultations on the amendments had concluded.

Instrument choice

A regulatory amendment was the only available instrument to modify the requirements pertaining to the A. tonsa acute lethality test. Non-regulatory options were considered but determined not to be viable to achieve regulatory flexibility.

Regulatory analysis

The following Indigenous organizations and stakeholders are expected to be affected by the amendment:

Benefits and costs

Without the amendments, the MDMER requires that effluent be non-acutely lethal to A. tonsa invertebrate species as a condition of its deposit into the receiving water frequented by fish or place that can reach such water. Therefore, if effluent is determined to be acutely lethal to A. tonsa, a mine owner or operator would not be compliant with the MDMER.

With the amendments, the A. tonsa acute lethality test method will remain in place as a monitoring and reporting requirement; however, the requirement to pass the A. tonsa acute lethality test will be suspended for a period of 10 years. Under the amended regulation, although mine owners or operators may voluntarily implement corrective actions following a test failure, there is no legal requirement to do so. The associated risks are expected to be mitigated by the other compliance parameters under the MDMER that remain in place to collectively help mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. It is expected that the company would still have a strong incentive to investigate failed tests and take corrective actions as needed given that the testing requirement will become mandatory again after 10 years.

Benefits

The estimated benefit of the amendments is increased regulatory flexibility for mines subject to the A. tonsa acute lethality test, which may help reduce investment risk by providing greater regulatory certainty.

Costs

This amendment does not introduce any additional costs to industry, government, or consumers. While no direct economic impacts are anticipated, the amendments would result in an increase in the risk of negative impacts on the receiving environment. However, these risks are expected to be mitigated by other requirements under the MDMER, such as the concentration limits for deleterious substances, and the application of other acute lethality tests for fish species, which continue to apply. Further, the Department consulted the KIA and KitlA, who represent Inuit interests related to land, water, and resource management. KIA and KitlA are supportive of the amendments.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the Regulation will not impact Canadian small businesses.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no incremental change in administrative burden on businesses and no regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The A. tonsa acute lethality test is only required under federal regulations (e.g. the MDMER). Once effluent is discharged into marine waters, regulatory jurisdiction over that effluent lies with the federal government only. Because of shared jurisdiction, provinces and territories can regulate activities associated with the generation and control of effluent. However, to date, they have not chosen to regulate discharges from the mining sector into the marine environment.

International obligations

The amendment applies to a national regulation only and does not include or affect international agreements or obligations.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with guidance under the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, the Regulations were exempt from performing a strategic economic analysis due to their nature and scope. The preliminary screening questions indicated that the Regulations are not expected to have any important impacts related to greenhouse gases, nature and biodiversity, the environment, and Canada’s climate change adaptation or resilience, nor are the objectives of this proposal at a specific or heightened risk from the impacts of climate change.

Gender-based analysis plus

The amendment to move the A. tonsa acute lethality test to a monitoring parameter currently applies to two mines located in the Kivalliq and Kitikmeot regions of Nunavut: Meliadine and Hope Bay, respectively. The groups that may be disproportionately affected are the Inuit and those living in rural or remote areas (i.e. the Kivalliq and Kitikmeot regions). The Inuit in these regions support seeing a resolution to the issue raised and have expressed support for the amendment.

AMENDMENT 2: AMENDMENT TO THE METAL AND DIAMOND MINING EFFLUENT REGULATIONS AND THE PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE INCORPORATION OF AN ADDITIONAL SUBLETHAL TOXICITY TEST METHOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING STUDIES

Issues

Two standard sublethal toxicity test methods for marine algae are currently permitted for use within the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (PPER) and Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER), but testing with these methods is no longer supported by Canadian laboratories, leaving mills and mines subject to these requirements with no Canadian option for fulfilling their testing obligations. Although one laboratory in the United States runs one of the permitted standard test methods, meeting the test method conditions (e.g. effluent holding times) has proven to be challenging, and in some cases, impossible. A new standard sublethal toxicity test method has been developed. However, it cannot be used to fulfill marine algae sublethal toxicity testing requirements until it is incorporated into the PPER and MDMER.

Background

The PPER and MDMER require mills and mines to conduct environmental effects monitoring (EEM) studies as a condition for their authorization to deposit effluent containing prescribed deleterious substances. These studies include the requirement to conduct sublethal toxicity testing of effluent using, depending on the test required, one of the standard test methods incorporated by reference in these regulations. For most tests required (e.g. a marine algae test), a choice between two standard test methods is available.

ECCC recently published a new standard test method for determining the sublethal toxicity of effluent to marine algae: Canadian add-on procedure to ISO 10710: Test for determining growth inhibition using the macroalgae, Ceramium tenuicorne - Canada.ca (Reference Method STB 1/RM/63). The validation of this method involved the collaboration of mills and mines in sending their effluent to a commercial laboratory contracted for this work. Given that Ceramium tenuicorne can be cultured in-house, and there is currently an established culture at the commercial laboratory that conducted the work to develop and refine the method, this test is expected to be more accessible to Canadian mills and mines.

Objective

Amending the PPER and MDMER to incorporate the new standard test method by reference will increase regulatory flexibility and reduce compliance costs by restoring an option for facilities to fulfill their regulatory requirements in Canada.

Description

The PPER and MDMER will incorporate by reference the new standard test method and thus permit that an additional test method be used to fulfill the marine algae sublethal toxicity testing requirements of mills and mines discharging effluent to estuarine or marine environments: Canadian add-on procedure to ISO 10710: Test for determining growth inhibition using the macroalgae, Ceramium tenuicorne - Canada.ca (Reference Method STB 1/RM/63).

Regulatory development

Consultation

The key stakeholders are the commercial laboratories offering sublethal toxicity testing and the mills and mines that are required to conduct sublethal toxicity testing on marine algae species as they deposit effluent into estuarine or marine environments.

Three primary Canadian commercial laboratories (AquaTox, Nautilus Environmental and Bureau Veritas) were solicited for a proposal for three separate competitive contracts relating to the development of the new standard test method. These contracts include the establishment of the algae culture (2021), test method applicability in the Canadian context (2022), and the validation and refinement of the test method (2023). Only one lab, AquaTox (now Nautilus Environmental, following a recent merger), submitted a proposal to all three method development contracts. All commercial laboratories were notified upon publication of the new standard method by ECCC, and no concern or issue was raised.

Mills were notified in 2022 of the test method contract and were solicited to voluntarily provide final effluent samples for testing. From this, nine mills participated and provided samples anonymously. During the validation and refinement phase in 2023, mills and mines were solicited to voluntarily provide effluent, and four mills and two mines participated. Mills and mines were notified during these solicitations that the intent was to eventually amend the PPER and MDMER to include the new standard test method. The response was positive, and several facilities requested permission to use the new standard test method for fulfilling their PPER and MDMER testing obligations, which the Department could not provide.

The Department contacted all regulated facilities required to conduct sublethal toxicity testing on marine algae and offered to discuss the new method, with a deadline of December 5, 2025, to submit comments or questions. A meeting was held with AEM on November 17, 2025, at their request, to discuss technical details related to the test method. On November 27, 2025, AEM submitted comments requesting clarity on the method validation process and whether mines discharging effluent to estuarine or marine environments would be obligated to use the new test method. ECCC responded on November 28, 2025, by providing background information on the method validation process and clarifying that existing test methods would still be permitted for use by mines. No other regulated facilities had comments or questions, as was expected given the overall positive reaction to previous notifications in 2022 and 2023.

Exemption from prepublication

Support is expected for the incorporation by reference of an additional standard test method for sublethal toxicity testing on marine algae species. Key stakeholders (regulated facilities and a major commercial lab) were involved in its development. Its incorporation will restore regulatory flexibility for marine algae sublethal toxicity requirements and Canadian business opportunities and avoid disruption in effluent toxicity information of public interest. Therefore, the amendments were exempted from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

The incorporation of an additional standard test method for sublethal toxicity testing for the PPER and MDMER increases regulatory flexibility for facilities to fulfill their marine algae sublethal toxicity testing regulatory requirements in Canada. The additional sublethal toxicity testing method is equivalent in terms of scientific validity and rigorousness to currently permitted methods. Its incorporation restores regulatory flexibility to mills and mines, as currently permitted methods are no longer supported by commercial labs in Canada. Given the nature of this amendment, it is not anticipated to intersect with the rights affirmed in the UN Declaration or have any impacts on modern treaty rights.

Instrument choice

A regulatory amendment was the only instrument available to add an additional standard test method for sublethal toxicity testing requirements for the PPER and MDMER. Non-regulatory options were determined not to be viable alternatives.

Regulatory analysis

The following stakeholders are expected to be affected by the amendments:

Benefits and costs

Benefits

This amendment introduces a regulatory alternative for regulatees required to conduct sublethal toxicity testing on marine algae. The expected benefits of the amendment are decreased compliance costs for businesses in the implementation of EEM requirements (i.e. sublethal toxicity testing will be less costly) and increased demand for services for any Canadian laboratories conducting the new test.

Costs

There are no anticipated costs related to this amendment, as the new method is anticipated to cost less for laboratories and facilities than the other two existing test methods in the PPER and MDMER, as the test organism can be cultured in-house.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the Regulations will not impact Canadian small businesses.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no incremental change in administrative burden on business and no regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The new method for PPER and MDMER is an adaptation for use in the Canadian regulatory context of an international standard that has been published since 2010. Adapting an existing ISO standard method leverages internationally accepted, validated methods to save time and resources compared to developing a completely new standard. ECCC investigated multiple standardized test methods using marine macroalgae species and focused on the ISO 10710 standard method for Ceramium tenuicorne, since this organism is found in both the Atlantic and Pacific receiving environments.

For the purpose of using this ISO standard method within a regulatory context, the Canadian add-on procedure was developed to

International obligations

The amendment applies to national regulations only and does not include or affect international agreements or obligations.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with guidance under the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, this proposal was exempt from performing a strategic economic analysis due to the nature and scope of the proposal. The preliminary screening questions indicated that the proposal is not expected to have any important impacts related to greenhouse gases, nature and biodiversity, the environment, and Canada’s climate change adaptation or resilience, nor are the objectives of this proposal at a specific or heightened risk from the impacts of climate change.

Gender-based analysis plus

The incorporation of the additional standard sublethal toxicity test method for the PPER and MDMER is not expected to affect any groups disproportionately, and no stakeholders have expressed concern regarding possible consequences of the amendment to different groups.

AMENDMENT 3: ADMINISTRATIVE AND MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE METAL AND DIAMOND MINING EFFLUENT REGULATIONS AND THE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

Issues

Administrative amendments to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER) and Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER) are required to address regulatory inconsistencies, such as alignment between French and English texts, and other minor issues affecting regulatory clarity and enforceability of the regulations.

Background

The WSER, established under the Fisheries Act in 2012, were developed to protect the environment by lowering the level of deleterious substances released through wastewater effluent. The Regulations set national baseline effluent quality standards that are achievable through secondary wastewater treatment and prohibit the discharge of effluent that is acutely lethal to rainbow trout using prescribed methods. The Regulations provide an authorization under the Fisheries Act for release of wastewater effluent under specific conditions and compliance timelines.

In 2024, ECCC published the Regulations Amending the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations. Since the coming into force of these amendments, ECCC identified minor issues and inconsistencies that require clarity to ensure consistent implementation and enforceability of the amended regulations, with a focus on section 45, which sets conditions for authorizations.

Sections 23, 24, 25, and 31.1 of the MDMER included language that allowed for unintentional compliance and enforceability issues with respect to reporting effluent monitoring results through the Department’s online reporting system as well as notifying prescribed authorities through accepted channels.

ECCC also identified, in the environmental effects monitoring (EEM) study provisions of the MDMER, inconsistencies between the French and English text and other minor wording issues affecting regulatory clarity.

Objective

The amendments will improve regulatory clarity, remove minor errors and resolve enforceability issues.

Description

The amendments to the WSER will modify two provisions to help with its implementation and will correct an error. First, it will add an operator definition to align with other regulations under the Fisheries Act. The definition, consistent with the MDMER and PPER, clarifies who can be considered an “operator” of a wastewater system, which is relevant for enforcement purposes.

Second, the amendments to the WSER also clarify the temporary bypass authorization (TBA) provisions. In particular, the amendments clarify that a TBA holder is only authorized to make the deposit in accordance with the authorization and outline the conditions that must be met (such as the date(s), duration, location and volume of the bypass). This change was prepublished and consulted on in 2023, but inadvertently removed in the final drafting.

An amendment to section 23 of the MDMER will clarify the regulatory reporting requirements through the Mine Effluent Reporting System (MERS) and other formats provided by the Department. This amendment is intended to simplify the collection of compliance-related information by ensuring regulated mines use MERS or other Department-approved formats.

In addition, amendments to sections 24, 25, and 31.1 of the MDMER will replace “inspector” with “inspector, fishery officer, or authority prescribed by regulations” so that existing centrally coordinated notification and reporting systems can be used to receive notifications related to effluent quality, sampling relief, and unauthorized deposits. This amendment will allow mines to use the one-window reporting systems established across Canada to fulfill their regulatory obligations and avoid duplicate efforts by eliminating the need to report to an inspector to meet federal obligations, and separately to the province or territory. This also better aligns with the Fisheries Act, which sets out who is authorized to receive similar reporting.

Finally, minor administrative amendments will also be made to certain sections of the MDMER and the WSER to align French and English provisions, correct inconsistencies and improve clarity. For example, different wording was used in the EEM study provisions of the MDMER to describe the testing frequency for sublethal toxicity tests and effluent characterization, despite the regulations requiring that these tests be conducted on the same effluent samples. The amendments will correct this inconsistency.

Regulatory development

Consultation

During the targeted consultation period for the MDMER amendments to the A. tonsa acute lethality requirement between October 2025 and December 2025, where KIA and KitIA, NTI, the Government of Nunavut, as well as the impacted mine proponent and the MAC were contacted, the Department also informed these interested parties that some administrative amendments would be considered, including requirements for electronic reporting through the MERS.

On November 28, 2025, MAC provided a comment asking for further clarification on the amendments related to the reporting requirements. The Department responded on December 9, 2025, clarifying that section 23 of the MDMER currently specifies that information required under sections 7, 21 and 22 must be submitted electronically in the format provided by the Department. However, information required under several other sections of the MDMER is already being submitted electronically through the MERS or other approved formats. The amendment seeks to remove the specific reference currently in section 23, thereby extending the requirement for electronic submission to apply to other sections in which reporting is required. MAC did not have further comments.

Exemption from prepublication

The administrative amendments are proposed to strengthen regulatory clarity and enforceability, including the correction of inconsistencies and alignment of English and French texts. These changes are administrative in nature and are not expected to generate stakeholder reactions or concerns. Therefore, the amendments were exempted from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

The administrative amendments to the MDMER and WSER are not substantive and are aimed at resolving implementation and enforceability issues and correcting inconsistencies between the English and French texts. The changes to WSER are meant to align definitions with other regulations made under the Fisheries Act and resolve minor errors and inconsistencies in the regulatory text that cause enforceability issues. Given the nature of these administrative amendments, they are not anticipated to intersect with the rights affirmed in the UN Declaration or have any impacts on modern treaty rights.

Instrument choice

A regulatory amendment was the only instrument available to correct drafting oversights in the Regulations Amending the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations published in 2024, and the only option for revising other administrative issues to WSER and MDMER. Non-regulatory options were determined not to be viable.

Regulatory analysis

The following stakeholders are expected to be affected by the amendments:

Benefits and costs

Benefits

The estimated benefits of MDMER amendments to industry are in the form of reduced reporting complexity and increased regulatory certainty for business (i.e. improved clarity). There are no estimated benefits for the minor amendments to the WSER.

These amendments do not result in any direct incremental benefits to the Government of Canada, though there is the potential for more efficient enforcement from the improved regulatory certainty around the administrative requirements of the MDMER.

Costs

There are no anticipated costs from the amendments to the MDMER or WSER.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the amendments will not impact Canadian small businesses.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no incremental change in administrative burden on business and no regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

MDMER changes result in alignment with provincial and territorial administrative processes, which would allow the use of one-window reporting systems for administrative requirements.

International obligations

The amendment applies to national regulations only and does not include or affect international agreements or obligations.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with guidance under the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, this proposal was exempt from performing a strategic economic analysis due to the nature and scope of the proposal. The preliminary screening questions indicated that the proposal is not expected to have any important impacts related to greenhouse gases, nature and biodiversity, the environment, and Canada’s climate change adaptation or resilience, nor are the objectives of this proposal at a specific or heightened risk from the impacts of climate change.

Gender-based analysis plus

The amendments are not anticipated to impact any groups disproportionately. The amendments are administrative and are designed to correct errors and ensure enforceability of existing provisions.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The regulatory amendments to the MDMER, PPER, and WSER come into force on the date they are registered.

Once the regulatory amendments come into force, updated guidance for the industry will be shared with stakeholders. ECCC will also conduct promotional activities to ensure stakeholders are aware of the regulatory amendments and their implications on an as-needed basis. ECCC will also update internal guidance where applicable.

Compliance and enforcement

The amendments to the MDMER, PPER, and WSER Regulations are made under the Fisheries Act, so enforcement officers would, when verifying compliance with the proposed Regulations, apply the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for Habitat and Pollution Provisions of the Fisheries Act (the Policy). The Policy sets out principles of fair, predictable and consistent enforcement that govern the application of the Act and its Regulations. It also sets out the range of possible responses to alleged violations, including issuance of warnings, directions, and ministerial orders, without resorting to court action, and/or court actions, such as injunctions, prosecution, court orders upon conviction, and civil suits for recovery of costs.

To verify compliance, enforcement officers carry out inspections, which may include activities such as site visits, sample analysis, review of reports, and more. An inspection may identify an alleged violation and result in an enforcement response. An enforcement officer may also conduct an investigation to gather evidence when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence is being or has been committed.

If there is evidence of an alleged offence, enforcement officers determine an appropriate enforcement action in accordance with the criteria set out in the Policy, which include the nature of the alleged violation, effectiveness in achievement of the desired result, and consistency in enforcement.

Contacts

Jacinthe David
Director General
Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate
Environment and Climate Change Canada
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Email for MDMER: MDMER-REMMMD@ec.gc.ca
Email for PPER: refpppper@ec.gc.ca
Email for WSER: eu-ww@ec.gc.ca

Matthew Watkinson
Executive Director
Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division
Economic Analysis Directorate
Environment and Climate Change Canada
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Email: ravd.darv@ec.gc.ca