Regulations Amending the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations: SOR/2026-144

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 160, Number 13

Registration
SOR/2026-144 June 22, 2026

FISHERIES ACT

P.C. 2026-633 June 22, 2026

Whereas, under subsection 34.1(1)footnote a of the Fisheries Act footnote b, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has considered the factors listed in paragraphs 34.1(1)(a) to (h)footnote a of that Act;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations under paragraphs 43(1)(b)footnote c, (i)footnote d, (i.11)footnote d, (i.2)footnote d, (i.4)footnote d, (i.6)footnote d and (i.8)footnote d of that Act.

Regulations Amending the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations

Amendments

1 Section 1 of the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations footnote 1 and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Definitions

Definitions

1 The following definitions apply in these Regulations.

Act
means the Fisheries Act. (Loi )
DFO technical standards
means a document, as amended from time to time, of a technical or explanatory nature that is published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and that provides measures to avoid the death of fish or to mitigate the extent of their death and to avoid or mitigate the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. (normes techniques du MPO)
existing facility
means a structure constructed prior to July 14, 1977, and located wholly or partially in fish habitat. (installation existante)
municipality
means an incorporated city, town, village, metropolitan authority, township, district, county or rural municipality or other incorporated municipal body however designated. (municipalité)

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

Issuance of authorization

2 The Minister may, on application, issue an authorization referred to in paragraph 34.4(2)(b) or 35(2)(b) of the Act.

Application for authorization

2.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application in respect of one or more works, undertakings or activities must be made to the Minister in writing and include

Application — existing facility

(2) An application in respect of one or more works, undertakings or activities in relation to the operations of an existing facility must be made to the Minister in writing and include

DFO technical standards

(3) Despite subsection (1), an application in respect of one or more works, undertakings or activities need not contain the information and documents referred to in paragraph (1)(b) with respect to any work, undertaking or activity for which the applicant confirms in writing that the applicable chapter of the DFO technical standards will be followed.

DFO technical standards — existing facility

(4) Despite subsection (2), an application in respect of one or more works, undertakings or activities in relation to the operations of an existing facility need not contain the information and documents referred to in paragraph (2)(b) with respect to any work, undertaking or activity for which the applicant confirms in writing that the applicable chapter of the DFO technical standards will be followed.

3 The portion of section 3 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Information to be provided — emergency situation

3 Only the information set out in Schedule 2 must be provided to the Minister in support of an application in respect of one or more works, undertakings or activities that need to be carried on without delay in response to the following situations:

4 (1) Subsection 4(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Application under section 2.1

4 (1) This section applies to applications referred to in section 2.1.

(2) Subsections 4(3) to (5) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Risk assessment by Minister

(2.1) For the purposes of subparagraphs (3)(b)(i) and (c)(i), the Minister must conduct a risk assessment in respect of an application for authorization in order to determine whether offsetting the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat is required.

90-day time limit

(3) Subject to subsections (6) and (8), the Minister must, within a period of 90 days beginning on the day on which the application is received, notify the applicant in writing of one of the following:

Exception

(3.1) Clause (3)(c)(i)(C) does not apply if the applicant is His Majesty in right of Canada or of a province, the government of a territory, a municipality or an Indigenous governing body.

Confirmation of receipt

(4) The Minister must, on receipt of all of the information or documents set out in the notification referred to in paragraph (3)(a), send to the applicant a confirmation of receipt that indicates the date of receipt.

Subsection (3) applies again

(4.1) Once the confirmation of receipt is sent, subsection (3) applies to the application again, except that the period begins on the date indicated in the confirmation of receipt.

Application adequate

(4.2) If the application is adequate with respect to the information and documents referred to in subsection 2.1(1) or (2) and those referred to in subparagraph (3)(c)(i), if applicable, and the consultations referred to in subparagraph (3)(b)(ii) or (c)(ii), if applicable, have been conducted, the Minister must notify the applicant in writing to that effect.

Minister’s decision

(5) Subject to subsections (6) and (8), the Minister must, within a period of 60 days beginning on the date of the notification referred to in subsection (4.2), issue an authorization to the applicant or notify them in writing of the refusal to do so.

(3) Paragraphs 4(6)(c) to (e) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(4) Paragraph 4(8)(d) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5 Paragraphs 5(c) and (d) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

6 Paragraph 6(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

7 Paragraph 7(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

8 (1) Subsections 8(2) to (4) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

90-day time limit

(2) Subject to subsections (5) and (7), the Minister must, within a period of 90 days beginning on the day on which the request is received, notify the authorization holder in writing of one of the following:

Confirmation of receipt

(3) The Minister must, on receipt of all of the information or documents set out in the notification referred to in paragraph (2)(a), send to the authorization holder a confirmation of receipt that indicates the date of receipt.

Subsection (2) applies again

(3.1) Once the confirmation of receipt is sent, subsection (2) applies to the request again, except that the period begins on the date indicated in the confirmation of receipt.

Minister’s decision

(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (7), the Minister must, within a period of 60 days beginning on the date of the notification referred to in paragraph (2)(b), amend, suspend or cancel the authorization or notify the authorization holder in writing of the refusal to do so.

(2) Paragraphs 8(5)(c) to (e) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraph 8(7)(d) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

9 Paragraph 9(1)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

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

Minister’s amendment

9.1 The Minister, on their own initiative, may amend, in whole or in part, any authorization if they become aware of new information that demonstrates that further action is necessary to avoid, mitigate or offset the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

11 Sections 10 and 11 of the Regulations are repealed.

12 Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations are replaced by Schedules 1, 2 and 3 set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

Transitional Provision

13 (1) In this section, former Regulations means the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations, as they read immediately before the day on which these Regulations come into force.

(2) The former Regulations continue to apply to an application made in accordance with section 2 of those Regulations if, before the day on which these Regulations come into force, the Minister, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Fisheries Act, has, in accordance with subsection 4(3) of the former Regulations, notified the applicant that their application is complete.

(3) For greater certainty, any application made in accordance with section 2 of the former Regulations must be dealt with under the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Regulations, as they read on the day on which these Regulations come into force, if the Minister, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Act, has, in accordance with subsection 4(3) of the former regulations, either notified the applicant that their application is incomplete or inadequate or has not notified the applicant.

Coming into Force

14 These Regulations come into force on October 15, 2026.

SCHEDULE

(Section 12)

SCHEDULE 1

(Paragraphs 2.1(1)(a) and (b), clauses 4(3)(c)(i)(A) and (C) and paragraph 5(c))

Information and Documents to Be Provided

PART 1

Contact Information

1 The name, address, email address and telephone number of the applicant and, if applicable, their representative.

Description of Proposed Work, Undertaking or Activity

2 A description of each proposed work, undertaking or activity and, if applicable, a description of the project that the proposed work, undertaking or activity is a part of, including

3 If physical works are proposed, the area, in square metres, of those works and, for works in or near water, the project engineering specifications, scale drawings and dimensional drawings.

Phases, Schedule and Duration

4 A description of the phases, schedule and expected duration of the proposed work, undertaking or activity and, if applicable, a description, schedule and expected duration of the project that the proposed work, undertaking or activity is a part of.

Location

5 A description of the location of the proposed work, undertaking or activity and, if applicable, of the location of the project that the proposed work, undertaking or activity is a part of, including

6 The name of the community nearest to the location and the name of the county, district or region and the province or territory where the proposed work, undertaking or activity will be carried on.

Fish and Fish Habitat

7 A description of the fish and fish habitat found at the location of the proposed work, undertaking or activity and within the area likely to be affected by the proposed work, undertaking or activity, including

PART 2

Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat

8 (1) A description of the likely effects of the proposed work, undertaking or activity on fish and fish habitat. The description must include

(2) A description of

Measures and Standards

9 A description of the measures and standards that will be implemented, including an analysis of the expected effectiveness of those measures and standards, to

10 A description of the monitoring measures that will be implemented to assess the effectiveness of the measures and standards referred to in section 9.

11 A description of the death of fish referred to in subsection 8(2) after the measures and standards referred to in paragraph 9(a) are implemented.

12 A description of the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat referred to in subsection 8(2) after the measures and standards referred to in paragraph 9(b) are implemented.

Engagement

13 A list of the Indigenous groups that may be affected by the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity, a summary of any engagement undertaken with the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including a summary of key issues raised and the results of the engagement, and a brief description of any plan for future engagement.

PART 3

Habitat Credit

14 The number of habitat credits that the applicant plans to use to offset the death of fish referred to in section 11 and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat referred to in section 12, as well as the number of any certificate referred to in paragraph 42.02(1)(b) of the Act.

Offsetting Plan

15 A description of a plan to offset the death of fish referred to in section 11 and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat referred to in section 12 that were not offset by the habitat credits referred to in section 14, including

SCHEDULE 2

(Section 3 and paragraph 5(c))

Information to Be Provided — Emergency Situations

1 The name, address, email address and telephone number of the applicant and, if applicable, their representative.

2 A description of each proposed work, undertaking or activity, a description of the applicable situation referred to in paragraphs 3(a), (b) or (c) of these Regulations and the reasons why the work, undertaking or activity needs to be carried on without delay.

3 The timeline for carrying on the proposed work, undertaking or activity.

4 A description of the location of the proposed work, undertaking or activity, including its geographic coordinates and the name of any water sources and water bodies that are likely to be affected.

5 A description of the death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat that are likely to result from the proposed work, undertaking or activity.

SCHEDULE 3

(Paragraphs 2.1(2)(a) and (b), clauses 4(3)(c)(i)(B) and (C) and paragraph 5(c))

Information and Documents To Be Provided — Existing Facilities

PART 1

Contact Information

1 The name, address, email address and telephone number of the applicant and, if applicable, their representative.

Description of Existing Facility and Works, Undertakings or Activities

2 (1) A description of the existing facility and its operations, including its

(2) A description of each work, undertaking or activity in relation to the operations of the existing facility, including the purpose of the work, undertaking or activity.

3 The engineering specifications, scale drawings and dimensional drawings of the existing facility and the operating plans and details of any fishways.

Location

4 A description of the location of the existing facility, including

5 The name of the community nearest to the location and the name of the county, district or region and the province or territory in which the existing facility is located.

Fish and Fish Habitat

6 A description of the fish and fish habitat found at the location of the existing facility, including

PART 2

Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat

7 (1) A description of the effects of the operations of the existing facility on fish and fish habitat. The description must include

(2) A description of

Measures and Standards

8 A description of the measures and standards, including an analysis of the expected effectiveness of those measures and standards, to

9 A description of the monitoring measures for assessing the effectiveness of the measures and standards referred to in section 8.

10 A description of the death of fish referred to in subsection 7(2) after the measures and standards referred to in paragraph 8(a) are implemented.

11 A description of the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat referred to in subsection 7(2) after the measures and standards referred to in paragraph 8(b) are implemented.

Engagement

12 A list of the Indigenous groups that may be affected by the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity, a summary of any engagement undertaken with the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including a summary of key issues raised and the results of the engagement, and a brief description of any plan for future engagement.

PART 3

Habitat Credit

13 The number of habitat credits that the applicant plans to use to offset the death of fish referred to in section 10 and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat referred to in section 11, as well as the number of any certificate referred to in paragraph 42.02(1)(b) of the Act.

Offsetting Plan

14 A description of a plan to offset the death of fish referred to in section 10 and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat referred to in section 11 that were not offset by the habitat credits referred to in section 13, including

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

In July 2025, the Government of Canada launched a Red Tape Review with the aim of cutting red tape to save Canadians and businesses time and money. Departments and agencies were challenged to reduce burden associated with regulatory authorizations and project approvals, strengthen service delivery, and ensure that regulatory requirements are calibrated to risks to health, safety, security and the environment. Further, in June 2025, the Prime Minister announced a commitment to ensuring all federal assessment decisions are rendered within two years, beginning with projects of national interest, and to, along with other First Ministers, immediately begin to address project approval and permitting efficiency and timelines for all projects.

The Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations (the Authorizations Regulations) set out the documents and information that applicants must provide when applying for a Ministerial authorization under paragraphs 34.4(2)(b) or 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act for a project that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD). It costs Canadians and businesses time and resources to prepare items required by the Authorizations Regulations. This represents an unnecessary regulatory burden in cases where regulators do not believe the risks to fish and fish habitat warrant the submission of certain items or details currently required according to the Authorizations Regulations, or if the details are already known to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) or are not critical for a decision on a project or its conditions of authorization.

Background

DFO helps conserve and protect fish and fish habitat by regulating projects taking place near water. It plays a key role in implementing the fish and fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, which, generally speaking, prohibit the carrying out of works, undertakings or activities (hereafter referred to as projects) that result in the death of fish and/or HADD, unless an exception is granted under the Fisheries Act. The primary means of exception used by DFO is a Ministerial authorization issued under paragraph 34.4(2)(b) [for death of fish] and/or paragraph 35(2)(b) [for HADD] of the Fisheries Act. DFO evaluates approximately 150 applications each year for such authorizations.

The Authorizations Regulations set out the application requirements for authorizations referred to in paragraphs 34.4(2)(b) or 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act. They also establish some service standards and process requirements that DFO must follow, and the reasons for which the Minister may amend, suspend or cancel a previously issued authorization at her own initiative.

Schedule 1 of the Authorizations Regulations identifies information requirements for standard applications, and Schedule 2 of the Authorizations Regulations identifies information requirements for applications in emergency situations, which are generally for projects that need to be carried on without delay in response to an emergency that poses a risk to public health or safety, the environment or property.

What follows is a brief introduction to some of the elements of the Authorizations Regulations pertinent to this regulatory initiative.

Standard information requirements

The information requirements set out in Schedule 1 of the Authorizations Regulations must be followed for all standard (non-emergency) applications. Such applications cover projects ranging from installing a small temporary culvert to constructing and operating a new hydroelectric generating station. While in practice there is some flexibility in implementation (judgement as to level of detail required to satisfy each information requirement), the regulatory language is sometimes too rigid to flex down to what is appropriate for low impact projects. There is opportunity for slight tweaks in information requirements based on experience gained reviewing applications according to Schedule 1 for the past several years. Application efficiency and clarity could be increased for certain project types by specifying custom-tailored information requirements for them.

Offsetting 

Offsetting measures are the actions taken by a proponent to counterbalance the residual effects to fish and fish habitat that are caused by their project after avoidance measures and mitigation measures (e.g. measures to reduce the spatial scale, duration and intensity of negative impacts to fish habitat) have been applied. In most cases, offsetting consists of habitat restoration, habitat enhancement and/or habitat construction.

The Authorizations Regulations currently require a detailed offsetting plan upon application for a standard authorization (unless the use of credits from a habitat bank is proposed). Project proponents have indicated that an offsetting plan is one of the hardest application information requirements to fulfil and is difficult to provide at the time of initial application. Development of a robust offsetting plan generally requires extensive scientific analysis, site-specific data, and meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples.

Financial guarantees 

Financial guarantees help ensure project proponents complete the offsetting that is required as a condition of their authorization. They provide governments access to private funds should a project proponent become unable to implement their offsetting plan. Financial guarantees are commonly an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a recognized Canadian financial institution (which often requires collateral and reduce the proponent’s available borrowing capacity), or a performance bond, which is similar to buying insurance and typically comes with annual costs (premiums) to the purchaser. Federal, provincial and territorial governments are currently exempt from having to provide a financial guarantee under the Authorizations Regulations.

The Authorizations Regulations currently require the financial guarantee to be provided upon application. Having the financial guarantee in place throughout the project review phase, which for major projects is often more than a year, is unnecessary (no death of fish or HADD has been authorized yet to warrant holding a financial guarantee) and has a financial impact on the proponent.

Amend, suspend and cancel authorities

The Authorizations Regulations provide the Minister with the power to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization at her own initiative under the following circumstances:

Thus, the Authorization Regulations restrict the circumstances under which the Minister, and by extension regulators, may amend, suspend or cancel a previously issued authorization. Broadening the scope of these circumstances is desired to add flexibility in the timing of offsetting plans. It could also provide more flexibility for the Minister to implement adaptive management, whereby adjustments can be made to authorization conditions, if needed, based on results from monitoring.

The Authorizations Regulations do not limit the reasons for which an authorization holder may request an amendment, suspension or cancellation for their authorization.

Service standards and process flow 

The Authorizations Regulations specify two time limits by which the Minister must abide when reviewing applications:

The Authorizations Regulations also specify reasons for which each time limit may cease to apply, which, among other reasons, includes when the Minister must conduct Indigenous consultations. The time limit restarts at zero upon completion of the reason the time limit ceased to apply.

The Authorization Regulations currently require the proponent to be notified when their application is determined to be complete and that this determination has triggered the start of the second time limit for the Minister’s decision. However, usually this time limit immediately ceases to apply because the application is undergoing the consultations required before the Minister may make her decision. Confusion may arise when a proponent is simultaneously being notified that the second time limit has started and it immediately ceased to apply owing to required consultations.

Objective

The primary objective of this regulatory initiative is to make targeted changes to the requirements an applicant must fulfill when applying for an authorization for a project that may result in the death of fish or HADD. The intended outcome is to help DFO reduce red tape (unnecessary regulatory burden) and deliver on commitments in its Red Tape Review Progress Report, while upholding environmental standards and constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples.

Description

Adjustments to standard information requirements

The amendments adjust the wording of certain standard information requirements in Schedule 1 to increase flexibility for the submission of slightly less detailed information for lower-impact projects. In particular, in sections 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 of the current version of Schedule 1 (becoming sections 2, 7–12 and 15 in the amended Schedule 1), the language is changed from “detailed description” to “description”, and in current sections 13 and 14 (becoming sections 11 and 12 in the amended Schedule 1), the referenced descriptions are no longer required to be quantitative.

The amendments add the requirement to provide an email address and the requirement to provide date-stamped photographs that clearly indicate the habitat characteristics that are likely to be affected by the proposed work, undertaking or activity.

The amendments remove the requirement to provide contingency measures if the planned avoidance and mitigation measures and offsetting measures do not meet their objective (sections 12 and 16(e) of the current version of Schedule 1), and make it optional to provide an estimate of the abundance of the fish species present [current section 8(c)].

The amendments add that information on physical works must include the area, in square metres, of fish habitat expected to be affected, while clarifying that project engineering specifications, scale drawings, and dimensional drawings only need to be provided for works (elements of the project) in or near water.

The amendments modify the information to be submitted about any engagement activities undertaken to harmonize with the Indigenous engagement information requirement of the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulations made under the Impact Assessment Act. That is, applications will need to include a list of the Indigenous groups that may be affected by the carrying out of the project, a summary of any engagement undertaken with the Indigenous Peoples of Canada, including a summary of key issues raised and the results of the engagement, and a brief description of any plan for future engagement.

Customized requirements for existing facilities and for routine projects following a technical standard

The amendments add a definition for existing facilities, and introduce Schedule 3 setting out customized information requirements for applications for existing facilities, where authorizations are needed for ongoing operations resulting in the death of fish or HADD. In brief, an existing facility is a structure located wholly or partially in fish habitat that was built prior to July 14, 1977, when fish and fish protection provisions were first introduced into the Fisheries Act. An example of an existing facility is a hydroelectric dam with a generating facility. The information requirements in Schedule 3 are similar to Schedule 1 requirements, with minor wording changes introduced to better reflect their application to existing facilities. For example, applications for existing facilities will not need to include information relating to phases and schedules of the work in recognition that operations are ongoing. Additionally, only information related to facilities’ operations, and not original project construction, is required to be submitted.

The amendments add a definition of DFO Technical Standards as a document, as amended from time to time, of a technical or explanatory nature, published by DFO that provides measures to avoid the death of fish or to mitigate the extent of their death, and to avoid or mitigate the HADD. The document will include chapters, each of which provides the technical standard for a particular type of routine project, including measures to minimize the death of fish and HADD. The amendments establish that applicants whose projects will follow the applicable technical standard do not need to provide the items set out in Part 2 of the amended Schedule 1 in their initial application. That is, they do not need to provide information on the effects on fish and fish habitat, the measures and standards they will implement, or engagement. They also do not have to provide an offsetting plan or financial guarantee unless notified to the contrary.

Offsetting

The amendments move the timing of submission of an offsetting plan (and/or information on habitat credits) later in the regulatory review process, after regulators have reviewed initial application information and completed a risk assessment. They clarify in regulation that the Minister may exempt certain projects from needing offsetting based on this risk assessment.

Financial guarantees

The amendments move the timing of submission of a financial guarantee later in the process, after review of the initial application and determination of whether offsetting is required (under the Authorizations Regulations, a financial guarantee is not required if offsetting is not required). The amendments also exempt municipalities and Indigenous governing bodies from having to provide a financial guarantee, expanding the existing exemption for federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Adjustments to information requirements for emergency situations

The amendments modify Schedule 2 to require an email address and change the language from a “detailed description” to a “description”.

Adjustments to information requirements for proponent requested amendments, suspensions or cancellations

The amendments modify paragraphs 5(d), 6(d) and 7(d) to change the language from a “detailed description” to a “description” of the likely effects on fish and fish habitat of the request. These paragraphs refer to information a proponent must provide when they request an amendment, suspension or cancellation of their authorization.

Amend, suspend and cancel authorities

The amendments provide the Minister with the authority to amend an authorization if she becomes aware of new information that demonstrates that further action is necessary to avoid, mitigate or offset the death of fish or HADD. This would cover the Minister amending a previously issued authorization to add conditions obliging the authorization holder to follow the offsetting plan finalized after issuance of the authorization.

The amendments expand the current authority for the Minister to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization if the death of fish or HADD is “greater than” expected to also cover if it is “different” than expected. This would enable an authorization to be amended, suspended or cancelled for reasons beyond more fish than expected dying, or the extent of the HADD is greater in magnitude than expected. It would also cover, for example, if the way the fish die is different than expected, if different fish (life stage, species, etc.) are dying than expected, or if the project caused a different impact on fish habitat than expected.

The amendments provide the Minister with the authority to amend, suspend or cancel an authorization if she becomes aware of new information demonstrating that the avoidance, mitigation or offsetting measures set out in the conditions of the authorization are not achieving the outcomes anticipated at the time of issuance of the authorization. The new authority facilitates eliminating the application requirement for proponents to pre-identify contingency measures. Instead, authorizations will require DFO notification in such situations, and DFO and proponents can collaborate on appropriate contingency measures.

Service standards and process flow

The amendments increase the first service standard, for review of information required for an initial application, from 60 days to 90 days, and reduce the second service standard, for the Minister to make a decision, from 90 days to 60 days.

The amendments update the language for the determination DFO makes on an initial application, by replacing “complete” with “adequate”, in part to acknowledge that an offsetting plan and financial guarantee may still be required before the Minister’s decision.

The amendments clarify that all requested information or documents set out in a notification (vs. any) must be received for the time limit to apply again (restart from zero).

The amendments require the Minister to notify the applicant once required consultations have been conducted, and all submitted documents and information, including the offsetting plan and financial guarantee, where required, are considered adequate for the purposes of proceeding to the Minister’s decision on whether to authorize the project. An adequate offsetting plan at this stage does not necessarily mean it is final; occasionally, finalization may occur later. This notification will trigger the second time limit to begin for the Minister to make a decision on whether to issue or refuse the authorization.

The amendments add details on the alternative options for the potential content of each notification letter referred to in the Authorizations Regulations. They also modify several provisions to update the section number for a referenced provision and group items in the schedules into parts for ease of cross-referencing. Several language updates were made to reflect current legal drafting preferences, without changing requirements, and the Authorizations Regulations were updated to clarify that an application may relate to more than one works, undertakings or activities.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Recent DFO engagement activities

Targeted engagement on the proposed regulatory changes with Indigenous Peoples, key stakeholders and partners occurred between November 2025 and May 2026.

For industry (including energy, mining, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries industry associations) and environmental organizations, engagement materials were distributed to key interested parties in early November 2025. Targeted, virtual roundtables were held in early December, one each for industry and environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), to share updates and gather feedback. DFO received written submissions from seven industry respondents and four ENGO respondents.

For provincial and territorial partners, engagement materials and updates were shared via the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Committee of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers at the beginning of December 2025. DFO received written submissions from six provincial partners.

For Indigenous partners, DFO hosted two targeted virtual, facilitated workshops/roundtables for Indigenous Peoples in January 2026. The independent facilitator of these workshops/roundtables provided a report of the feedback gathered, and DFO received a written submission from six Indigenous organizations. DFO also shared engagement materials with members of DFOs’ Indigenous Collaborative Network (ICN) at the end of November 2025 for feedback from January to February 2026. ICN is a network of Indigenous, national-level organizations with expertise in fish and fish habitat, which has existing contribution agreements to support the network in providing advice to DFO’s Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program. DFO received written submissions from five ICN member organizations. DFO also presented at the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Fisheries Committee meeting on March 12–13, 2026, and at the MĂ©tis National Council meeting on May 14, 2026.

These targeted engagement activities built upon key themes of the multi-wave engagement process, conducted between December 2020 and March 2024. That process sought to gather feedback on the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program proposals from Indigenous Peoples, provinces, territories, industry associations, ENGOs, and stakeholders with interests in the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. There were over 300 participants in wave 1, over 1 000 participants in wave 2, and 850 participants in wave 3. The aligning key themes are outlined below.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Horizontal Red Tape Review

Between December 3, 2025, and February 28, 2026, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) conducted consultations as part of horizontal red tape reviews on five topics, including “Supporting regulatory efficiency for project reviews.” The aim of the review was to explore ways to reduce red tape and improve Canada’s regulatory system so that it is streamlined and transparent; supports economic growth and innovation; and continues to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment. TBS received nine submissions relevant to DFO’s role in regulating projects.

Summary of input received by theme

From all of the input provided during recent targeted engagement, the horizontal red tape review, as well as the previous multi-wave engagement, there was support for many of the regulatory proposals put forward.

Financial guarantees: The proposal to allow later submission of financial guarantees, where required, was seen as a positive administrative measure that will benefit all types of project proponents with no environmental impact. While some respondents to the targeted engagement noted the need to maintain the financial guarantee requirement to reduce the risk of required offsetting not being done, during previous engagement waves DFO heard from municipalities and Indigenous governing bodies that being required to provide financial guarantees was a difficult and costly burden when undertaking infrastructure and restoration works. The amendments respond to this input by expanding the financial guarantee exemption to include municipal governments and Indigenous governing bodies, who are accountable to their citizenry for the exercise of good governance, while maintaining the requirement for all other proponents.

Existing facilities: Industry groups that own or operate existing hydroelectric facilities expressed strong support for tailored information requirements, noting that existing facilities have a number of different considerations than new construction projects. DFO recognizes the unique circumstances that existing facilities face in achieving compliance with the fish and fish habitat protection provisions. Thus, DFO is establishing a new schedule, Schedule 3, setting out tailored information requirements with the recognition of the long-term nature of these facilities’ operations and infrastructure.

Aligning application requirements with risk: There was good support from a variety of respondents, including from industry, environmental NGOs, Provinces/Territories and Indigenous Peoples, about the notion of better aligning application requirements with project risk. A more flexible approach, particularly for low-risk projects and restoration-focused activities, was widely seen as beneficial. For restoration projects in particular, many respondents emphasized a strong interest in seeing greater flexibility on whether an offsetting plan was required due to the already-beneficial nature of the work being authorized. Some Indigenous respondents expressed concerns about efforts to “streamline” information requirements. Many respondents also noted that a better understanding of how DFO conceptualizes project risk would be useful. To address concerns about how risk would be considered, the definition of risk will rely, in part, on technical standards developed by DFO. A document entitled DFO Technical Standards is being developed by DFO to set out measures to minimize project risk. This document will be amended over time and expanded to provide technical standards for additional types of routine projects, with opportunities for input. For non-routine projects, where technical standards are more difficult to apply, the determination of project risk will be based on a DFO risk evaluation that considers a variety of factors, including location, habitat sensitivity, timing and duration, and species at risk. Where, via the technical standard or risk evaluation, risk is determined to be low, there will be no requirement for submission of an offsetting plan.

Modified timing of offsetting plans and expanded authority to amend an authorization to support offsetting plan finalization after authorization issuance, where appropriate: In practice, project proponents are often seeking flexibility in DFO’s implementation of authorization application requirements to allow them to move forward with their project quickly, while completing some requirements (particularly the completion of the offsetting plan) after the point of authorization. Delaying the timing of submission of offsetting plans is also intended to respond to previous Indigenous partner feedback on the desire to be consulted by DFO on potential offsetting measures rather than on a finalized offsetting plan. Some Indigenous partners expressed concerns about expanding DFO’s amend, suspend, and cancel powers, questioning how they would be informed of such amendments with DFO’s unreliable notification system. Industry groups expressed concerns about expanding DFO’s amend, suspend, and cancel powers because of a perceived lack of certainty that once they have been issued an authorization, it would remain stable and valid. The amendments continue to limit the Minister’s powers to particular circumstances described in the regulation, rather than provide broad discretion. Additionally, DFO will prepare guidance on the use of these authorities for the coming into force of the regulatory amendments to provide additional clarity and transparency. ENGOs expressed support for the expanded amend, suspend and cancel powers as a way for the Minister to amend authorizations issued under emergency situations to ensure that, where appropriate, offsetting of impacts would be required.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

Section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act requires the Government of Canada to take, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, all measures necessary to ensure that existing and new laws of Canada, including regulations, are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

During recent engagements on the proposed regulatory changes (refer to the “Consultation” section above), DFO, industry groups, ENGOs and Indigenous Peoples shared common support for early engagement with Indigenous Peoples potentially affected by a project. Indigenous participants noted that all engagement and consultation should consider both short- and medium-term impacts on communities, and that those undertaking engagement and consultation have training to support effective engagement practices. Indigenous Habitat Participation Program funding will continue to be made available to Indigenous Peoples through grants and contributions to support their meaningful participation in consultations related to project review. DFO will strengthen proponent guidance to emphasize the importance of undertaking early Indigenous engagement, and will also support proponents through a concierge service.

Per the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an assessment was conducted on this regulatory initiative. The assessment concluded that there is a low risk that the regulatory amendments (modifications to application requirements) will impact the rights, interests, and/or self-government provisions of modern treaty partners. However, DFO recognizes that implementation of the regulatory amendments, that is, authorization of projects, may impact modern treaty rights by affecting the use and management of modern treaty and/or adjacent lands, including access to fisheries and marine resources. DFO’s modern treaty obligations remain unchanged under this proposal. Decisions that may impact harvesting or access rights and interests or trigger treaty-specific consultations and implementation obligations will require early and meaningful consultation of Modern Treaty Partners. DFO will continue to respect the consultation obligations set out in modern treaties under the new application requirements.

Instrument choice

To support transparency and national consistency, DFO is continuing to set out core application requirements in regulations, rather than relying on other instruments, such as forms and guidelines, which can provide regulators with more flexibility to waive requirements that are unnecessary for certain applications but are not directly enforceable. Guidance on the level of detail required to satisfy each item required under Schedule 1, 2 or 3 will continue to be provided outside of the Authorizations Regulations, through the Applicant’s Guide and related guidance material as well as project-specific feedback.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The incremental impacts (benefits and costs) of the amendments are assessed as a difference between the baseline and the regulatory amendments, in accordance with the TBS Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide.footnote 2 The incremental costs and benefits have been assessed over a period of 10 years (2026–2035). The costs and benefits have been estimated in 2025 constant dollars in present value terms using a discount rate of 7% (unless otherwise stated). The present value base year is 2026 and the impacts incurred in the first year of the analytical time period are discounted.

Incremental costs

The amendments are anticipated to impose negligible incremental costs on Canadians and Canadian businesses. The federal government will incur low incremental costs to develop technical standards, estimated at approximately $221,600 (present value discounted at 7%) over a 10-year period, or an annualized average value of $31,600. Other incremental costs to the government have been assessed qualitatively and are discussed below.

Costs to Canadians and Canadian businesses

The new requirements to include an email address, date-stamped photographs and an estimate of the area in square metres of fish habitat expected to be affected by an application are not expected to significantly increase incremental administrative burden for proponents. In the case of the photographs, most applicants were already providing photographs to DFO with their Request for Review form. Photographs are also routinely requested by other regulatory agencies (for projects requiring multiple approvals), and the capture and electronic transmission of photographs have become technologically easy. Most applicants already provide an email address as a preferred means of communication (there is a field to provide this on the current application form), and area estimates are generally already provided as part of the required description of the extent of effects on fish and fish habitat.

There is no incremental cost to proponents associated with DFO technical standards. The amendments do not obligate applicants to follow a technical standard. Applicants can choose whether to: a) follow a technical standard and the streamlined application process; or, b) not commit to following a technical standard and complete the normal application process.

Costs to Government

The federal government will incur incremental costs to develop the technical standards that remove the requirement to submit certain information in an application. It is anticipated that DFO will develop 10 technical standards (10 chapters of the DFO Technical Standards document) within the first three years of the analytical time period, at a cost of approximately $25,000 each. The incremental costs are expected to be low and estimated at approximately $221,600 (present value discounted at 7%) over a 10-year period, or an annualized average value of $31,600. These government costs will be funded through existing resources and no new funding will be sought.

There are no anticipated incremental costs to the government associated with compliance promotion and enforcement.

Incremental benefits

The amendments are expected to result in incremental benefits for Canadians and Canadian businesses, the federal government, municipal governments, and Indigenous government bodies. For Canadian businesses, there would be an incremental decrease in administrative burden estimated to range from approximately $166,600 to $559,400 (present value discounted at 7%) over a 10-year period, or an annualized average value ranging from $23,700 to $79,600. The other incremental benefits identified have been assessed qualitatively and are discussed below.

Benefits to Canadians and Canadian businesses

To monetize the incremental benefits to businesses resulting from the amendments reducing the information requirements for their authorization applications, the economic analysis applies Canada-wide median hourly wages of $40.00 for Aquatic Biologistsfootnote 3 and $62.56 for Ecology Managersfootnote 4, reflecting the opportunity cost of labour incurred by businesses to complete and review application-related administrative tasks. Aquatic Biologists are assumed to collect information for applications and prepare the required forms, while Ecology Managers review them prior to submission.

The economic analysis assumes that the average annual number of applications received by DFO between 2023 and 2025 remains constant throughout the analytical time horizon. During this period, DFO received an average of 133 standard (non-emergency) applications per year, of which 48 were submitted by businesses, including 8 from small businesses.

Streamlined information requirements for routine projects following technical standards

Applicants of routine projects following technical standards are expected to require less time to prepare applications, as they would no longer need to provide information related to anticipated effects on fish and fish habitat, measures and standards, consultations, an offsetting plan or a financial guarantee. It is estimated that applicants would save between 42 to 70 hours per application relative to the baseline for these projects. This is expected to affect 10 applications annually, of which 3 would be submitted by businesses, including 1 from a small business. This incremental decrease in administrative burden is estimated to save businesses approximately $45,800 to $75,900 (present value discounted at 7%) over a 10-year period, or an annualized average value ranging from $6,500 to $10,800.

Streamlined information requirements for non-routine low-impact projects exempted from offsetting

Applicants of non-routine, low-impact projects that cannot follow a technical standard but receive an offsetting exemption are expected to save time preparing applications. Reduced administrative effort is attributed to more flexible Schedule 1 language (e.g. allow a description rather than a detailed description), the removal of requirements to provide information on contingency measures and quantitative estimates of fish abundance, and the elimination of the need to prepare an offsetting plan or provide a financial guarantee. It is estimated that applicants will save between 35 and 57 hours per application compared to the baseline for these projects. This is expected to apply to 17 applications annually, of which 6 would be submitted by businesses, including 1 from a small business. This incremental decrease in administrative burden is estimated to save businesses approximately $78,900 to $126,200 (present value discounted at 7%) over a 10-year period, or an annualized average value ranging from $11,200 to $18,000.

Streamlined information requirements for all other applications benefitting from flexible Schedule 1 language and removing requirements for contingency measures and fish abundance estimates

Applicants undertaking projects that do not meet a technical standard and that are not assessed as low impact and exempt from offsetting may also benefit from reduced application preparation time. These savings are attributable to more flexible Schedule 1 language (e.g. allow a description rather than a detailed description) and the removal of requirements to provide information on contingency measures and quantitative estimates of fish abundance. It is estimated that applicants will save between 3 to 25 hours per application compared to the baseline for these projects. This is expected to apply to 106 applications annually, of which 39 would be submitted by businesses, including 6 from small businesses. This incremental decrease in administrative burden is estimated to save businesses approximately $41,900 to $357,300 (present value discounted at 7%) over a 10-year period, or an annualized average value ranging from $6,000 to $50,900.

Table 1 summarizes the estimated administrative cost savings to industry resulting from reductions in administrative burden.

Table 1: Present value incremental benefits to industry: Administrative cost savings (in constant 2025 Can$, present value base year 2026, discounted at 7% over 10 years)
Description Incremental cost savings (2026 to 2035) Annualized cost savings
Lower bound Central estimate Upper bound Lower bound Central estimate Upper bound
Streamlined information requirements for routine projects following technical standards $45,800 $60,800 $75,900 $6,500 $8,700 $10,800
Streamlined information requirements for non-routine, low impact projects exempted from offsetting $78,900 $102,600 $126,200 $11,200 $14,600 $18,000
Streamlined information requirements for all other applications benefitting from flexible Schedule 1 language and removing requirements for contingency measures and fish abundance estimates $41,900 $199,600 $357,300 $6,000 $28,400 $50,900
Total administrative cost savings $166,600 $363,000 $559,400 $23,700 $51,700 $79,600

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Financial guarantee compliance cost savings

An exemption from the requirement to develop an offsetting plan would also relieve businesses from the need to provide a financial guarantee demonstrating their capacity to cover implementation costs, potentially resulting in significant compliance cost savings. The magnitude of these potential savings depends on several factors, including market interest rates, the type of financial instrument used by proponents (e.g. letters of credit or performance bonds), and underwriting and collateral arrangements specific to proponents and their projects. Given the high degree of uncertainty regarding the timing of financial guarantees and the variability associated with these parameters, the economic analysis could not quantify the associated incremental benefits.

Tailored information requirements for existing facilities

The new Schedule 3 sets out tailored information requirements for applications from existing facilities. While the associated incremental benefits are expected to be negligible, as the revised requirements remain functionally similar to the baseline, the primary objective of these amendments is to increase transparency and clarity for such applications.

Deferring certain requirements for standard (non-emergency) applications

The amendments no longer require standard (non-emergency) applications to include an offsetting plan and corresponding financial guarantee upon initial application, and defer the timing of this until later in the process. Where proponents will still be required to develop an offsetting plan and provide a financial guarantee at a later stage in the authorization process, the amendments would not result in incremental time or cost savings. However, proponents may realize a modest benefit from being able to submit their applications to DFO more quickly.

For a small number of standard (non-emergency) applications each year, proponents will submit a draft offsetting plan prior to the issuance of an authorization but the final plan would be completed afterward. Proponents may realize a modest benefit from being able to start their project earlier than if the authorization could not be issued until finalization of the offsetting plan.

Information requirements applicable to emergency applications

The amendments to Schedule 2 relating to applications in emergency situations are expected to have negligible impacts for applicants, as emergency application requirements are already streamlined to facilitate timely authorization and enable work to begin as quickly as possible.

Benefits to municipal governments and Indigenous governing bodies

The amendment to exempt municipalities and Indigenous governing bodies from providing a financial guarantee as part of their authorization application is anticipated to apply to approximately 24 municipalities and 2 Indigenous governing body applications annually, resulting in incremental compliance cost savings for these project proponents. The magnitude of these savings would depend on several factors, including prevailing market interest rates, the type of financial instrument used (e.g. letters of credit or performance bonds), and underwriting and collateral arrangements that are specific to proponents and their projects. Given the high degree of uncertainty regarding the timing of financial guarantees and the variability associated with these parameters, the associated incremental benefits were not quantified.

Benefits to Government

As a result of the reduced information requirements for many applications, the Government is expected to realize incremental cost savings associated with a decrease in administrative resources required to review and assess applications submitted by proponents. A quantitative estimate could not be produced, as information on the potential reduction in review time is not available.

Net benefits

In summary, the total estimated incremental costs to the government associated with developing the DFO Technical Standards document are approximately $221,600 with an annualized value of $31,600.

The total estimated incremental benefits to industry resulting from reduced administrative burden associated with streamlined information requirements for standard (non-emergency) applications ranges from approximately $166,600 to $559,400 with an annualized value ranging from $23,700 to $79,600.

Overall, the total estimated net benefits of the amendments range from a net cost of approximately $55,000 ($7,800 annualized) to a net benefit of $337,800 ($48,100 annualized).

Table 2 summarizes the estimated net benefits.

Table 2: Present value net benefits (in constant 2025 Can$, present value base year 2026, discounted at 7% over 10 years)
Impacted stakeholder Description Costs and benefits (2026 to 2035) Annualized costs and benefits
Lower bound Central estimate Upper bound Lower bound Central estimate Upper bound
Monetized costs
Government Develop DFO Technical Standards document $221,600 $221,600 $221,600 $31,600 $31,600 $31,600
Monetized benefits
Industry Streamlined information requirements for applications $166,600 $363,000 $559,400 $23,700 $51,700 $79,600
All stakeholders Net costs (benefits) $55,000 ($141,400) ($337,800) $7,800 ($20,100) ($48,100)

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Small business lens

Small businesses will benefit from an incremental decrease in administrative burden. The reduced administrative requirements relate to (i) streamlined information requirements for routine projects following technical standards; (ii) streamlined information requirements for non-routine low impact projects exempted from offsetting; and (iii) applications benefitting from flexible Schedule 1 language and removing requirements for contingency measures and fish abundance estimates. Therefore, the amendments would result in total administrative cost savings for small businesses estimated to range from approximately $34,900 to $101,300 (present value discounted at 7%) over a 10-year period, or an annualized average value ranging from $5,000 to $14,400.

DFO assessed options with a view to minimizing burden on small businesses, consistent with the small business lens requirement to consider flexible and less burdensome approaches where feasible. The amendments are the least burdensome for small businesses because they reduce administrative steps while allowing DFO to maintain environmental standards and meet constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples in project assessments, without undermining the objectives of the regulatory initiative.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies, since there is an incremental decrease in administrative burden on business. The proposal is considered burden OUT under the rule, and no regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

The reduced administrative requirements relate to (i) streamlined information requirements for routine projects following technical standards; (ii) streamlined information requirements for non-routine low impact projects exempted from offsetting; and (iii) applications benefitting from flexible Schedule 1 language and removing requirements for contingency measures and fish abundance estimates. Therefore, the amendments would result in an annualized administrative total cost savings of $14,855.

As per the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, the assessment of administrative impacts was conducted for a period of 10 years commencing from registration. All values listed in this section are presented in 2012 dollars, and discounted to 2012 at a rate of 7%.

Table 3: Present value incremental cost savings: Administrative burden Out (in constant 2012 Can$, present value base year 2012, discounted at 7%)
Description Amount
Annualized administrative cost savings $14,855
Annualized administrative cost savings per business $309

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The protection of fish and fish habitat is a federal responsibility. Although DFO has made agreements with certain provincial governments to allow them to review and approve some routine low-risk projects in accordance with DFO requirements, generally for other projects, DFO and provinces and territories have been evaluating projects for different aspects and risks. Work is underway to identify areas where DFO can work collaboratively with provinces and territories to reduce duplication of effort where regimes do overlap.

The Government of Canada is committed to achieving “one project, one review” for major projects — a streamlined process where federal and provincial governments collaborate to meet their respective jurisdictional responsibilities to protect the environment and Indigenous rights through a single process.

International obligations

The amendments are not expected to relate to international agreements or trade. They do not impose new prohibitions or decrease the likelihood of projects being approved in Canada. They do not relate to the acceptability of imported goods to potentially serve as a trade barrier.

Effects on the environment

The modifications to application requirements and processes are not anticipated to result in any important effects on the environment, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions or Canada’s climate resilience. The potential impacts of climate change are not anticipated to pose a specific risk to the implementation of the amendments.

Projects will still be reviewed for compliance with the Fisheries Act. Avoidance and mitigation measures will still be applied to minimize the death of fish and HADD, and, where appropriate, offsetting will still be required to compensate for unavoidable HADD. The types of projects that may receive exemptions from offsetting are those that would have negligible residual impacts and offsetting is thought to be impractical. The amendments do not restrict the Minister’s discretion to deny an application or to apply the conditions the Minister believes are appropriate.

Gender-based analysis plus

All applicants are expected to benefit from the amended application requirements. The amendments are not anticipated to introduce barriers for Canadians to apply for an authorization based on identify factors.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The amendments come into force on October 15, 2026. If an application for an authorization is made before the coming into force of these amendments, and the applicant has been notified that the application is complete, then the applicant and application will continue to follow the process outlined in the version of the Authorizations Regulations that existed prior to the amendments.

Technical Standards

DFO is developing a series of technical standards to implement the amendments. As an illustrative example of the idea behind technical standards, one could consider the installation of a watercourse crossing, such as a culvert or bridge. A proponent who chooses to follow the applicable technical standard would be required to invest in implementing a preferred design for the crossing and best practice installation procedures, supporting long-term risk-free fish passage through the structure and minimal death of fish and HADD during construction. With the project following the technical standard, DFO already knows the many details and anticipated impacts of the project and can therefore require less information in an application. Offsetting would generally not be required because the technical standard would dictate measures to reduce the impact to as low as practical. This approach is anticipated to promote equal or better outcomes for fish and fish habitat compared to a less fish-friendly design and installation coupled with offsetting measures.

The first technical standard DFO anticipates publishing is about watercourse crossings.

Expanded amend, suspend and cancel authorities

The expanded amend, suspend and cancel authorities are anticipated to mostly be implemented in situations where the Minister determines that the project can be authorized to proceed while the details of the offsetting plan are still being finalized. The authority ensures DFO can amend an authorization to add conditions obliging the authorization holder to follow the offsetting plan finalized after authorization issuance. DFO understands that expanding amend, suspend and cancel authorities may raise apprehension in project proponents about uncertainty, and underscores its commitment to working collaboratively with authorization holders.

For authorizations issued under emergency situations, the expanded authority also enables DFO to remove the standard condition that an offsetting plan must be submitted a certain number of days later and eliminates the current practice of asking proponents to submit a request for an amended authorization to reflect offsetting related conditions. Knowing the authority exists for DFO to initiate adding conditions related to offsetting after authorization issuance, DFO can wait to review the proponent’s post-project monitoring report summarizing the observed death of fish and HADD and then determine whether an offsetting plan is required. This approach was piloted in one DFO region, and it was found that no offsetting plan was required in about 30% of pilot cases.

Government commitments on getting major projects built in Canada

The implementation of the amendments is intended to support DFO’s compliance with the one-year timeline for federal reviews and decision-making, announced as a goal by the Government on May 8, 2026. Although the information requirements for new major projects largely remain the same, the amendments will help DFO streamline the review of routine works such that more effort can be directed toward expediting the review of larger and non-routine projects. The increased flexibility to finalize offsetting plans after authorization issuance will also help DFO meet the one-year timeline.

Compliance and enforcement

The conditions included in existing authorizations remain valid and continue to apply, as will those included in authorizations issued after the coming into force. Compliance with conditions of authorizations will continue to be monitored and enforced.

Service standards

DFO review of applications continues to be subject to service standards, that being a 90-day service standard for review of the initial application and a 60-day service standard for the Minister to decide. DFO adherence to these service standards will continue to be reported on Service standards for regulatory authorizations web page.

Contact

Miriam Padolsky
Director
Permitting Policies & Practices
Aquatic Ecosystems
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
200 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E6
Email: DFO.FFHPP-PPPH.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca