Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 157, Number 43: Canadian Navigable Waters Act Fees Regulations

October 28, 2023

Statutory authority
Canadian Navigable Waters Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

TC’s NPP services are currently provided to users free of charge, so all service delivery costs are borne by Canadian taxpayers. TC resources are strained to maintain existing service levels. Fees would help to shift some of the cost on to the beneficiaries of NPP services, thereby reducing the subsidization burden on taxpayers and the impact on TC resources.

Background

The NPP is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the CNWA. The NPP helps keep Canada’s navigable waters open for transport and recreation by regulating works and obstructions that may interfere with navigation in Canada’s navigable waters.

Applications for approval of works

The NPP receives applications, conducts assessments, and issues approvals to construct, place, alter, rebuild, remove, or decommission a work in navigable waters. Such works can range from private installations on recreational waterfront property to works associated with large-scale international mining operations. During the assessment phase of the review, the NPP may develop project-specific requirements for mitigating the potential impacts to navigation. This may include terms and conditions that would be attached to any approval issued for the work. Possible compliance requirements may be identified, such as on-site inspections by NPP staff during or after the construction of the work. Depending on the type of project proposed, the nature and degree of impacts, and its location, an impact assessment pursuant to the Impact Assessment Act and consultation with the public and Indigenous peoples may be required. The assessment would be conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency unless the proposed work is on federal lands in which case TC would lead the assessment. In either case, the NPP and other TC groups would provide input to the impact assessment.

Works approvals are granted to a diverse mix of proponents, including industry, private individuals, Indigenous peoples and organizations, federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, and municipalities. These entities benefit from the economic development of Canada’s natural resources; the use of navigable waterways for commercial and other transportation purposes; the opportunity to enjoy recreational activities along the country’s navigable waterways, such as the use of local swim areas, slalom courses, nautical sports jumps, and boat-launching ramps; the use of waterways to exercise Indigenous rights; and/or the opportunity to contribute to the construction of public infrastructure.

The NPP approves many applications for works which are stand-alone undertakings by proponents (e.g. a raft, a boathouse). The NPP also approves works which are components of larger projects (e.g. barge facilities, a road at a mine). With larger projects, the NPP only approves the individual works that may interfere with navigation, not the project as a whole or other activities that may be part of the project. For example, the NPP would not approve all components or activities of a wind generating tower, rather they would only focus on the elements of the work that may interfere with navigation, such as a tower component that is sunk into the seabed and bolted into place.

Applications for exemption of navigable waters from prohibited activities

The CNWA prohibits the following activities:

• Throwing or depositing floating materials likely to interfere with navigation in any navigable water or that flows into any navigable water (e.g. disposal of waste from logging activities);
• Throwing or depositing materials liable to sink to the bottom of a navigable water where there is not a minimum depth of 36 m of water at all times (e.g. dumping of mine tailings); and
• Dewatering that lowers the water level of a navigable water or any part of a navigable water to a level that extinguishes navigation for vessels of any class that navigate, or are likely to navigate, the navigable water in question.

The Governor in Council (GIC) has authority to exempt navigable waters from the application of these prohibitions through an Order in Council (OIC) if it is in the public interest to do so. The NPP shepherds applications by project proponents through the OIC process. Many federal and provincial departments, as well as agencies, may become involved in this process. Extensive public consultation and Indigenous consultation are required, and an environmental review may also be required.

Typically, OICs are only sought by proponents for major resource development projects. It is the responsibility of the proponent to compile the baseline research required for the NPP to conduct a triage and prepare the necessary documents related to the OIC. The NPP will develop the Minister’s recommendation (the official request for an exemption from the Minister of Transport to the GIC), based on the information and evidence submitted.

Exemptions of a navigable waterway from prohibited activities apply only to that waterway for that activity, not to other activities that may be part of a larger project, and which do not impact navigable waters.

Minor works in any navigable water

The CNWA provides the Minister of Transport with the power to make orders. The Minor Works Order allows for works to be built without review or approval if they meet the criteria for the applicable class of works, as well as specific terms and conditions for construction. Proposed works that meet the criteria and requirements found in the Minor Works Order do not require approval from the NPP and would not be subject to fees under the proposed Regulations.

Fee modernization at Transport Canada

The introduction of fees for the review of an application under the CNWA is part of TC’s Fee Modernization initiative. This project aims to increase revenues for the Department while providing improved client service experiences through digitalization, simplified fee structures, consistent processes, and clear service standards. The initiative is grounded in the Service Fees Act (SFA), which represents the Government’s commitment to modernizing its services and delivering value to Canadians, as well as the Policy on Service and Digital which was implemented to, among other things, articulate how Government organizations manage service delivery, information, and data. The project is part of a broader transformation plan to modernize laws, regulations, rules and standards while ensuring TC continues to uphold safety and security and to support innovation in the transportation sector.

The proposed fees for the review of an application under the CNWA would adhere to the requirements of the SFA and its related instruments, such as the Directive on Charging and Special Financial Authorities. In line with these requirements, TC developed a fee proposal, which was published online for public review and comment in November 2020.

Objective

The objective of the proposed Regulations is to recover a portion of the costs of providing the service of assessing and processing applications for CNWA approvals of works or applications for CNWA exemptions from prohibited activities. Currently, no fees are charged to project proponents to review an application for an approval or an exemption. The proposed Regulations would charge those that benefit from these services and would therefore reduce costs to Canadian taxpayers.

Description

TC is proposing to introduce fees for

• the review of an application for approval of a work, where TC has determined that the work may interfere with navigation in navigable waters and an approval would be required before a project could proceed; and
• the review of an application for an exemption from the prohibition of dewatering navigable waters or depositing and throwing certain materials into navigable waters, where TC has determined that an exemption would be required by the GIC before a project could proceed.

Fees to review an application for approval of a work

A fixed fee would be charged for the review of works that are subject to the requirement to apply for an approval. It is important to note that the fee is not for the granting of the approval itself and would not be refunded if an approval was denied. The fee would be payable after TC has notified the proponent that the application has been properly completed and submitted. Projects requiring multiple works would be billed for each individual work requiring an approval, so that total charges are proportional to the effort expended by TC for larger projects.

Three fee categories are proposed for review of applications for approval of works:

• Category 1 with a fee of $500 per application review;
• Category 2 with a fee of $1,400 per application review; and
• Category 3 with a fee of $4,300 per application review.

More detail on the three fee categories is presented below in Table 1. TC has developed a list called the Work Types List, which is comprised of all possible works which may be approved and categorizes each work as belonging to either Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3. The list can be found in Schedule 1 of the proposed Regulations.

Categorization of the works was determined based on construction methods, industry practices, size of the work, likely impacts to the waterway, and level of effort to review the application. The ability of the project proponent to absorb fees was also considered, hence differentiated (lower) pricing is proposed for works often undertaken by individuals, homeowners, and cottagers such as rafts, as well as certain types of aquaculture facilities, which are often owned by individuals or very small businesses.

While terms and conditions associated with a CNWA approval may be time-limited, the approval itself does not expire. Therefore, the fees payable for review of applications for approval of works are payable only once, at the time of initial application, after the NPP officer has accepted the application for review and there is no renewal fee. Additionally, fees would not be charged for the authorization or approval of emergency works, nor for any administrative amendments to terms and conditions (such as extensions to the validity period), nor to other elements of an existing approval.

The proposed categories, examples of works in each category, proposed fees and cost recovery rates are summarized below in Table 1, while a more detailed list can be found in Schedule 1 of the proposed Regulations. The proposed cost recovery rates were determined based primarily on a client’s ability to pay. Applications for Category 1 works are often submitted by individuals, therefore a relatively low-cost recovery rate of 14% is proposed. The rate climbs to 40% for Category 2 works as applications for these are more commonly requested by commercial or government clients. Category 3 works have the highest proposed rate (60%) as these higher complexity works are usually associated with large-scale commercial, industrial, or public sector projects whose proponents have the ability to absorb higher fees.

Fees for applications for an exemption

A fixed fee would also be charged for TC’s review and processing of an application to exempt a waterway or waterways from a prohibition. This work includes navigation impact assessments, input required by NPP officers towards parallel processes, if required (i.e. impact assessment per the Impact Assessment Act, Indigenous and public consultation) as well as shepherding the application through the OIC process.

The fee would be payable after TC has confirmed that an exemption would be required in order for the activity to proceed, and TC has notified the proponent that the application has been properly completed and submitted. TC is able to confirm if an exemption is required based on the information contained in the proponent’s application. This includes a description of the project, information on the anticipated impacts to navigation, a description of alternatives considered, consultation information, an environmental assessment, and rationale in support of an exemption. This information allows TC to determine whether an application involves an activity subject to subsection 24(1) of the CNWA.

It is important to note that the fee is not for the granting of the approval itself and would not be refunded if an exemption request were denied by the GIC. An application for an exemption from prohibited activities would have a fee of $66,000 imposed that would, on average, allow the NPP to recover 100% of its cost to review and process an application for exemption. This fee reflects the high proportion of privatized benefit of the service to the proponent.

Table 1: Navigation Protection Program — Proposed cost recovery fees
Table 1 represents each full fee amount starting in the fourth year after the coming into force of the Regulations.

Fee category	Fee category description	Examples of work types	Fee payable per application for approval reviewed table a1 note a	Estimated cost to TC to provide service	Cost recovery rate
Category 1	Low complexity works that do not meet the criteria to be considered a Minor Work, and are often associated with, but not limited to homeowner/cottager applications multi-work projects with a number of identical small works in close proximity	Low complexity works that do not meet the criteria to be considered a Minor Work, and are often associated with, but not limited to raft, boathouse, recreational slipway / boat-launching ramp helicopter logging, scientific equipment	$500	$3,510	14%
Category 2	Other low complexity works	Dredging, aerial cable, aquaculture facility — other than finfish, and commercial dock (jetty, pier, wharf)	$1,400	$3,510	40%
Category 3	High complexity works	Aquaculture facility — finfish, bridge and terminal	$4,300	$7,220	60%
Exemption	Exemption from prohibited activities	Dewatering a navigable waterway, throwing and depositing of certain materials	$66,000	$66,000	100%
Table a1 note(s) Table a1 note a A project involving multiple works would be billed for each work for which an approval is sought, and a review is required, even if a single application is submitted for the project. Under certain circumstances an application for an exemption could include more than one waterway. In these instances, the fee would be applied only once for the review of the application, rather than for each individual waterway. Return to table a1 note a referrer

It is important to note that proposed works that do not require review and approval from the NPP, such as minor works, would not be subject to fees.

Phasing in of fees

The proposed fees for review of an application for approval of a work would be phased in gradually as noted below and in Table 2.

• Upon the coming into force of the proposed Regulations, fees would be payable at a price equivalent to 55% of the full fee listed in the proposed Regulations. The full fee is indicated as item 4 of the fees table in the proposed Regulations.
• Beginning April 1, 2025, fees would be payable at a price equivalent to 70% of the full fee listed in the proposed Regulations.
• Beginning April 1, 2026, fees would be payable at a price equivalent to 85% of the full fee listed in the proposed Regulations.
• Beginning April 1, 2027, fees would be payable at a price equivalent to 100% of the full fee listed in the proposed Regulations.
• On April 1, 2028, and on April 1 in each subsequent year, the fees would be adjusted annually, based on the applicable Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by Statistics Canada.

The fee for application for an exemption would not be phased in. The full fee amount would be payable upon coming into force of the proposed Regulations, and CPI adjustment would occur on April 1, 2024, and every April 1 thereafter.

Table 2: Phase-in schedule for proposed fees

Period	Fee amount as % of full price (for works)	Fee payable for Category 1 works	Fee payable for Category 2 works	Fee payable for Category 3 works	Fee payable for exemptions
Coming into force of the Regulations to March 31, 2024	55%	$275	$770	$2,365	$66,000
April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025	55%	$275	$770	$2,365	$66,000 + annual CPI adjustment
April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026	70%	$350	$980	$3,010	$66,000 + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)
April 1, 2026, to March 31, 2027	85%	$425	$1,190	$3,655	$66,000 + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)
April 1, 2027, to March 31, 2028	100%	$500	$1,400	$4,300	$66,000 + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)
April 1, 2028, to March 31, 2029	100% + annual CPI adjustment	$500 + annual CPI adjustment	$1,400 + annual CPI adjustment	$4,300 + annual CPI adjustment	$66,000 + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)
April 1, 2029, onwards	100% + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)	$500 + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)	$1,400 + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)	$4,300 + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)	$66,000 + annual CPI adjustment (compounded)

Consultation

Consultations on the NPP fee proposal began on November 25, 2020, with the public posting of the fee proposal document on the TC “Let’s Talk Transportation” website. The fee proposal was also emailed to 378 stakeholders and 989 Indigenous Nations/communities and organizations contacts. The 60-day consultation period was extended to 80 days to accommodate the holiday period and concluded February 12, 2021.

The stakeholders and Indigenous peoples who would be generally affected by the proposed fees include the aquaculture industry, mining, energy and forestry sectors, boating associations, marinas, various levels of government, and Indigenous Nations/communities and organizations.

To support engagement and elicit meaningful input from stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, virtual consultation sessions were held by Webex in December 2020, January 2021, and May 2021. TC solicited feedback from those who attended these sessions on the following topics:

• the proposed fee design and pricing structure;
• the types of works included in each Fee Category;
• the impact of the fees on affected parties; and
• the proposed service standards.

During the consultations, TC received 37 written submissions and two comments through its “Let’s Talk Transportation” website from industry (aquaculture, mining and energy, beef producers), Indigenous communities, and different levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal). These same stakeholder groups also provided comments during the virtual sessions. Details about the consultation and the feedback received were published online in a report entitled “What we heard: Public consultation on introducing fees for the Navigation Protection Program.”

As a result of consultation feedback, four themes emerged that necessitated further analysis to determine whether changes to the proposed fees were warranted:

• Timing of fee implementation;
• Pricing for aquaculture works;
• Application of fees by request type; and
• Fee exemptions.

These themes, and how TC addressed the concerns raised from each stakeholder category, are discussed below.

Aquaculture sector

Participants from the aquaculture sector opposed the proposed NPP fees. They provided general feedback indicating that they already pay taxes/various fees to run their businesses and new fees would limit the growth of the aquaculture industry. They also noted the administrative burden of completing NPP applications for approval of works and that they have to comply with a wide range of regulations and requirements from all levels of government.

In particular, the aquaculture sector cited the following concerns with the fee proposal:

• the economic impact fees could have on the industry and the potential impact on their competitiveness in international markets;
• the differences in typical business size and profitability between finfish aquaculture facilities and other facilities such as shellfish aquaculture operations; and
• the perceived incongruity in the types of works that would be subject to Category 3 (i.e. it was considered unfair to include aquaculture works in the same fee category as major energy and public infrastructure works).

The aquaculture industry pointed out that about 96% of the sector is comprised of small businesses (0–99 employees) and most shellfish farms are run by single individuals or families, with a lower ability to absorb fees. It was also suggested that TC should charge lower fees for modifications to existing works, conduct a comprehensive review and jurisdictional analysis of fees being paid by aquaculture businesses and provide additional information on the costing and pricing analysis that supported the proposed fees. Some shellfish producers expressed concern with the significant change of going from no fees to $4,300 and some suggested that the fees could be phased in over a few years to mitigate the impact they would have on the growth of the industry. The sector also noted the challenges that it is facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including loss of upstream customer revenues.

TC response

In response to the concerns raised by the aquaculture industry, TC moved shellfish and other aquaculture facilities, such as marine plants, sea urchins and cockles, from Category 3 ($4,300) to Category 2 ($1,400), leaving finfish aquaculture facilities in Category 3. The proposed pricing for aquaculture facilities is thus as follows:

• Aquaculture facility — other than finfish — $1,400
• Aquaculture facility — finfish — $4,300

TC determined that this change would be appropriate because

• Shellfish farmers have been particularly impacted by COVID-19 due to the closure of food service establishments. For example, in winter 2020 during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, shellfish farmers in British Columbia (B.C.) were losing an estimated $2.4 million a month in sales.
• There are a number of alternate aquaculture species, such as marine plants, sea urchins, abalone, sea cucumber and cockles that are in the early stages of development and commercialization in Canada. They tend to be small producers, with a reduced ability to pay fees, and they form part of an important emerging industry in Canada.
• A client’s ability to pay was a consideration in the original fee design and pricing analysis. Using the feedback provided through consultations to better align fees for shellfish and other aquaculture facilities with owners’ ability to pay is consistent with the intent of the fee design and responds to the concerns heard with regard to the impact of the proposed fees on small and medium sized shellfish and other aquaculture businesses.

Mining and energy

Submissions from the mining and energy sectors noted that the proposed fee structure was appropriate and reasonable. However, they suggested that the introduction of a fee structure should be done in conjunction with a review of the NPP’s services to ensure the efficient use of resources and reduce the administrative burden on regulated companies. Those two sectors also proposed that when a work includes several components that may create economies of scale (for example a dam with a spillway and water intakes), the project should be treated as one single work for the purpose of issuing an approval and levying a fee. TC was also urged to provide more detailed service standards that include all the steps of the NPP approval process, from the filing of an application to the issuance of the final approval.

TC response

In developing the fee proposal, TC considered levying a single fee for projects that include several works, rather than billing for each work included in the application which is being reviewed. While the review of several works in a single application may offer some efficiency in the NPP’s review, it is proposed to charge the fee for each individual work because each work requires a separate navigation impact assessment and assessing the combined potential cumulative impact to navigation posed by multiple works represents an additional level of complexity. However, it was determined that, under certain circumstances, an application for an exemption could include more than one waterway if it was related to a single project. In these instances, the fee would be applied only once for the review of the application, rather than for each individual waterway.

The service standards in the fee proposal — for the review of both an application for a work and an application for an exemption — provide that within five business days of acknowledgement to the proponent of receipt of a complete application that requires an approval or OIC, TC would make available a tracking tool within the NPP external submission website to enable the proponent to track the status of their application. Stakeholders from the mining and energy sector commented that they would prefer to see service standards tied to the time it takes the NPP to review and approve the applications, particularly for those parts of the process for which the NPP has some control over the timelines (i.e. not including impact assessment, consultation with Indigenous people and GIC approval, which are parts of the process over which the NPP does not control the timelines). The proposed service standards were revisited following the consultation; however TC decided not to make any changes for several reasons.

First, there are many factors outside the NPP’s control that have an impact on the time it takes to review and approve a particular application. For example, whether the waterway has previously undergone a navigability assessment; if there are other works that may interfere with navigation on the waterway; if comments are received from the public in relation to the proposed work; and the characteristics of the waterway, safety of navigation, and navigation volumes on the waterway.

Additionally, the NPP data management system, NavInfo, does not currently include a provision to track NPP officers’ time spent on completing the steps in the NPP process for review of applications for works and exemptions. However, as part of the implementation of the fee regime, a time tracking provision is being developed, which will enable TC to better track and analyze the time required by NPP officers to complete the application review process.

As committed to in the original fee proposal, in the interest of transparency, TC will make available a tracking tool to enable the proponent to track the status of their application and will post the internal timelines that the NPP follows in relation to its review of works and exemption applications.

Governments

Feedback received indicated that some governmental organizations, such as small and/or rural municipalities, may find it challenging to pay the proposed fees, and that some organizations are already in difficult budget positions. The rationale to charge fees was also questioned for works that do not require changes to navigational aids, and the administrative burden of charging between governments was cited as a reason not to pursue the new fees. Some respondents asserted that fees should not be applied to government-funded infrastructure projects (for example roads and bridges) because these projects ultimately benefit the public. One respondent suggested that a yearly charge could be pursued, instead of fees for various individual approvals, as this could be easier and more efficient to administer.

TC response

TC considered the feedback received from public sector respondents and assessed whether to exempt this class of NPP applicant from the proposed fees. However, TC decided to maintain the existing approach and not exempt any applicant class, including governmental organizations, because

• Charging fees to other departments and levels of government is in line with TBS policy, since it promotes equity in the financing of government programs, facilitates more accurate distribution of costs among programs, and encourages the efficient use of available resources within the government.
• The NPP’s application review services still provide benefits to the applicant, even if the work is public infrastructure (e.g. a bridge).
• Since the proposed NPP fees are not recurring fees and are not material when viewed in comparison to the cost of most public infrastructure projects, it is not expected that the fees would delay or discourage public infrastructure development, with the caveat that smaller organizations, or frequent applicants to the NPP, may be more impacted financially.

Indigenous Nations/communities and organizations

A variety of views regarding the impacts of the proposed fees on Indigenous and remote communities were heard during the consultation. Certain Indigenous groups suggested offsetting the financial burdens placed on Indigenous communities associated with consultations for applications for approval of works. Indigenous Nations/communities and organizations suggested that they should not pay fees for works that benefit Indigenous people or are related to the pursuit of Indigenous ways of life and the exercise of their constitutionally protected rights. One Indigenous Nation that submitted feedback agreed in principle that the collection of fees, particularly from large industry projects, would provide an opportunity to reduce the costs paid by taxpayers, but felt that the negative impacts of fees charged to Indigenous peoples would outweigh the benefits to Canada as a whole. It was also mentioned that the proposed fees could represent a barrier for the economic development of Indigenous peoples and that the public-private benefit assessment used to develop the fees did not consider the Indigenous peoples’ relationship to navigable waters. Indigenous Nations/communities and organizations also encouraged TC to more closely examine how the proposed fees might affect them.

TC response

TC recognizes that the proposed fees would likely have mixed impacts on Indigenous communities. Imposing fees ensures that those who create interferences to Canadians’ and Indigenous people’s right to navigate are responsible for costs associated with an application review for the interference. Despite the suggestions, TC is not proposing to exempt projects constructed by Indigenous communities from fees primarily because Indigenous applicants receive the same benefits of the NPP’s application review services as other clients. Moreover, TC fee regulations generally do not include fee exemptions for specific classes of service recipients.

COVID-19 pandemic

Stakeholders, particularly in the aquaculture sector, raised concerns about both the timing of the consultation and eventual fee implementation given the current economic climate and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and indicated that imposing new fees at this time could be damaging to business and competitiveness. Of note, shellfish farmers have been particularly impacted by COVID-19 due to the closure of food service establishments. In winter 2020 during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, shellfish farmers in BC were losing an estimated $2.4 million a month in sales.

TC response

TC is proposing to address the underlying concerns about the timing of fee implementation in light of the current economic climate and COVID-19 pandemic effects by introducing most fees gradually, through a phase-in period.

The proposed fees for the review of an application for works would be phased in over approximately three years (2023–2026), for all applicants as follows:

• Upon coming into force of the proposed Regulations — 55% of full proposed fee;
• After 1 full fiscal year — 70% of full proposed fee;
• After 2 full fiscal years — 85% of full proposed fee; and
• After 3 full fiscal years — 100% of full proposed fee.

This approach was chosen because it would allow additional time for the economic circumstances of impacted stakeholders to improve before the full fees take effect and broadly address the concerns raised by industry. It would also be consistent with the approach taken by TC for several other programs introducing or increasing fees in the current economic environment.

Additional consultation feedback

Application of fees by request type

How the proposed NPP fees would be applied for various application types emerged as a theme, with respondents asking questions surrounding efficiencies and economies of scale that may be realized in certain cases.

Some stakeholders raised concerns with respect to billing the same fee regardless of the proposed activity (e.g. construction, placement, alteration, rebuilding, removal or decommissioning of works). Other stakeholders questioned the application of fees for amendments to existing approvals. Finally, some stakeholders suggested that fees for temporary works should be lower and questioned whether the NPP should lower its fees when reviewing more than one work in a single approval, due to economies of scale.

TC response

TC revised its approach to charging for the removal or decommissioning of a work. Fees would not apply to applications of this type. Charging such fees could unintentionally create an incentive among owners to abandon works, thereby creating unnecessary, prolonged interferences to navigation.

No action was taken with respect to changing the proposed fees for temporary works because the NPP’s review process and level of effort is identical to permanent works. In addition, the proposed approach of billing for each individual work included in an application was retained because each work requires a separate navigation impact assessment and assessing the combined potential cumulative impact to navigation posed by multiple works represents an additional level of complexity in the NPP officer’s review. No fee was originally proposed for administrative amendments to existing approvals and this approach remains in place (this point was clarified to the aquaculture industry in targeted engagement sessions).

Fee exemptions

The possibility of incorporating into the fee design exemptions for certain classes of users arose as a theme due to concerns raised during consultations regarding budget constraints, public-private benefit, and Indigenous considerations. Several stakeholders reasoned that their applicant class or type of work should be exempted from fees:

• Public works, such as those funded by other federal departments as well as municipal or provincial governments (including works in the Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s [DFO] Small Craft Harbours), since these were perceived to be of purely public benefit and many government organizations raised concerns about their ability to pay; and
• Works where the proponent is Indigenous, or works on traditional Indigenous territory, in the interest of reconciliation or due to the applicant class’ limited ability to pay.

TC response

No action was taken with respect to exempting certain applicant classes because

• Charging fees to the public sector is generally consistent with other TC programs (e.g. TC charges other federal departments and other levels of government for vessel inspections, aircraft maintenance, drone registration, vessel registration, railway inspections);
• Charging fees (including to other federal departments/other levels of government) is in line with TBS policy;
• All NPP clients receive the same benefits from the application review services; and
• TC generally does not exempt specific classes of service recipients from fees.

Administrative changes to fee proposal

In addition to the changes made to the original fee proposal in response to feedback heard during consultations, TC made some administrative adjustments to the proposal. In particular, Appendix B of the published fee proposal was modified. This appendix provided a list of 136 possible work types and the applicable fee category as initially proposed. Changes to this list were necessary to ensure clarity, consistency and cohesion.

• To ensure national consistency in the use of work type names, duplicative or repetitive work types were eliminated.
• The names of the fee categories were changed from Fee Category A1, A2 and B, to Category 1, 2 and 3.
• Some works were grouped together as subtypes under a broader work type. For example, dock — commercial, now includes three subtypes: jetty, pier, and wharf.
• Certain works were moved between fee categories. For example, after further analysis, fish habitat compensation structure was moved from Category 3 to Category 2 and regrouped with environmental compensation structures, since the review of an application for this work type represents the same level of effort as for environmental compensation structures.

The complete, refined Work Types List reflects the above adjustments, and can be found in Schedule 1 of the proposed Regulations.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposed Regulations are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the regulatory proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect and no modern treaty obligations were identified.

Instrument choice

Currently, there is no fee regime associated to NPP service delivery. This places a heavy strain on TC resources to maintain a consistent level of service and requires Canadian taxpayers to subsidize CNWA application processing services.

Non-regulatory options

Although there are non-regulatory options, such as Service Level Agreements (SLAs), that would meet most of the objectives of the proposed Regulations, these were not chosen primarily to reduce the administrative burden on TC’s clients. SLAs are voluntary contractual arrangements that enable the provision of a service in exchange for compensation. A prospective NPP client seeking to construct a work could voluntarily enter into an SLA with TC for NPP application review services. Since TC would charge for the service under the terms of the SLA, the objective of the regulatory fee proposal (i.e. shifting the cost burden from the general taxpayer to the client receiving the service) would be met. However, SLAs require negotiation and ongoing monitoring by both parties. In contrast, paying fees set by regulation is relatively simple and familiar for TC clients, since setting fees by regulation is a standard approach used by all levels of government worldwide.

Regulatory option

Instruments other than regulations, such as standards and policies or SLAs would be insufficient to achieve the outcomes needed. Charging fees would be the most transparent, predictable, and consistent way to ensure that the financial burden of the service delivery costs is balanced more appropriately between service recipients and taxpayers.

Fees can only be set using the regulatory authorities provided under the CNWA. Therefore, in order to establish these fees, a regulatory change is necessary. Regulations were also chosen to create a simple and understandable fee structure situated within one instrument (as opposed to multiple service agreements between TC and every owner across the country proposing a work).

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The proposed Regulations would enable TC to charge fees when reviewing applications submitted under the CNWA for (1) approval of works; and (2) exemption of a navigable waterway from a prohibition. As a result, proponents who would require such NPP services would incur a total of $11.84 million additional costs from 2024 to 2033 (present value in 2021 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2024 at a 7% discount rate).

The proposed fees would be used to recover the costs incurred by TC to provide these services, which are currently funded entirely by Canadian taxpayers. Therefore, the proposed Regulations would rebalance a portion of the costs from Canadian taxpayers to the TC clients who benefit from the services.

Analytical framework

Benefits and costs associated with the proposed Regulations are assessed by comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government of Canada does not implement the proposed Regulations. The regulatory scenario provides information on the intended outcomes of the proposed Regulations.

Following the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)’s Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, the scope of this analysis is at the societal level, analyzing costs and benefits attributed to Canadians. Since the introduction of fees for NPP services would result in a rebalancing of costs from taxpayers to those who directly benefit from the proposed Regulations, the costs to users of NPP services/activities would have a neutral impact on Canadian society overall.

This analysis estimated the impact of the proposed Regulations over a 10-year period from 2024 to 2033.^{footnote 1} Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in present values in 2021 Canadian dollars and discounted to the base year of 2024 at a 7% discount rate.

It is also important to note that proposed fees presented in Table 1 and 2 above are in 2023 Canadian dollars. For the purpose of this analysis, they have been adjusted to 2021 Canadian dollars using the Conference Board of Canada’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) Forecast.

A detailed cost-benefit analysis report is available upon request.

Affected stakeholders

The proposed Regulations would affect those who require NPP services. Works approvals are granted to a diverse mix of proponents, including industry, individuals, Indigenous peoples, federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, and municipalities. These entities profit from the economic development of Canada’s natural resources, make use of navigable waterways for commercial and other transportation purposes, enjoy recreational activities along the country’s navigable waterways, use waterways to exercise Indigenous rights, and/or contribute to the construction of public infrastructure. Proponents requesting an exemption of a navigable waterway from prohibited activities are traditionally mining companies, which require the ability to deposit materials, such as waste rock, into a navigable waterway to facilitate the development of projects with significant commercial benefits.

Due to the heterogeneous nature of NPP clients, the impact of the proposed fees on each group, and across individual members of each group, would be quite varied and dependent on the economic circumstances of each individual party.

Based on records in the NPP data management system, NavInfo, most applications submitted to the NPP were for approvals of works. Between 2017 and 2019, the NPP processed between 800 and 1 100 approvals of works per year. Of these approvals, 53% were issued to private sector commercial entities, 36% to various levels of government (with DFO as the federal department with the most approvals), 7% to residential works proponents, which includes cottager associations and private citizens, and 4% to Indigenous peoples.

Geographically, 29% of these approvals were issued in British Columbia, followed by 28% in the four Atlantic provinces, 25% in Quebec, and 18% in Ontario, Manitoba, the territories, and the Prairie provinces collectively.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

In the baseline scenario, TC would continue to not charge fees to any users of NPP services, whereas in the regulatory scenario, fees would be charged (with a phase-in approach) on applications to be reviewed for approval of works and for exemption of a navigable waterway from a prohibition. With regard to the review of applications for the approval of works, TC’s internal analysis based on historical data of applications reviewed estimates that, between 2024 and 2033 (i.e. the analytical period), approximately 784 applications for approval would be reviewed and subject to fees each year, spread across the three Fee Categories for review of applications for approval of works. With regard to the review of applications for exemptions, based on anticipated resource development and TC’s past experience with these requests, it was estimated that approximately 3 applications for exemption would be reviewed each year. Table 3 below presents the proposed fees by Fee Category, and the associated estimated number of applications to be reviewed for both approval of works and exemptions.

Table 3: Proposed fees and the estimated number of applications to be reviewed, by fee category

Fee category	Fees table a3 note a ($)					Annual average number of applications to be reviewed	Total number of applications to be reviewed (2024–2033)
	Baseline scenario	Regulatory scenario
		Coming-into-force to March 2025	April 2025 to March 2026	April 2026 to March 2027	April 2027 and onward
Category 1	0	248	315	383	450	84	839
Category 2	0	693	882	1,071	1,260	432	4 323
Category 3	0	2,129	2,710	3,290	3,871	268	2 682
Exemption	0	59,412	59,412	59,412	59,412	3	28
Table a3 note(s) Table a3 note a The proposed fees presented in the table are adjusted to 2021 Canadian dollars, and therefore are slightly different from those in tables 1 and 2. Return to table a3 note a referrer

Source: Transport Canada

Costs

The costs imposed on NPP service users were estimated by multiplying the proposed fee for each category and its associated number of applications to be reviewed per year. Using data presented in Table 3 above, the total costs associated with the proposed Regulations would be approximately $11.84 million for the analytical period. More detail is presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Total costs for NPP users, by fee category (present values in millions)

Fee category	Total costs
Category 1	$0.25
Category 2	$3.56
Category 3	$6.79
Exemption	$1.25
Total	$11.84

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Benefits

As previously stated, the proposed Regulations would result in a rebalancing of costs from Canadian taxpayers to users of NPP services. Therefore, the costs imposed on NPP users (i.e. $11.84 million in total) would also be the benefits (i.e. recovered costs) for Canadians.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of years: 10 (from 2024 to 2033)
• Base year for costing: 2021
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 5: Monetized costs (cost to users of NPP services, present value in millions)

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	Base Year: 2024	2025	2026	2027	2028–2032	Final year: 2033	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Users of NPP services	Service fees	$1.06	$1.10	$1.25	$1.46	$5.99	$0.97	$11.84	$1.69
All stakeholders	Total costs	$1.06	$1.10	$1.25	$1.46	$5.99	$0.97	$11.84	$1.69

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Table 6: Monetized benefits (cost recovered by TC, present values in millions)

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	Base year: 2024	2025	2026	2027	2028–2032	Final year: 2033	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Transport Canada	Recovered costs from fees paid by users of NPP services and activities	$1.06	$1.10	$1.25	$1.46	$5.99	$0.97	$11.84	$1.69
All stakeholders	Total benefits	$1.06	$1.10	$1.25	$1.46	$5.99	$0.97	$11.84	$1.69

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Table 7: Summary of monetized costs and benefits (present values in millions)

Impacts	Base year: 2024	2025	2026	2027	2028–2032	Final year: 2033	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Total costs	$1.06	$1.10	$1.25	$1.46	$5.99	$0.97	$11.84	$1.69
Total benefits	$1.06	$1.10	$1.25	$1.46	$5.99	$0.97	$11.84	$1.69
All stakeholders	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Qualitative benefits

The proposed service fees would result in increased equity by transferring a portion of the government’s costs to the primary users of NPP services (i.e. proponents seeking a review of an application for works or an exemption from prohibited activities), rather than the Canadian taxpayer. The proposed fees would help reduce the strain on the Government’s fiscal framework.

Sensitivity analysis

As previously described, a number of assumptions based on the projection of annual applications to be reviewed have been made to estimate the costs of the proposed Regulations. To address the effect of uncertainty and variability on these assumptions, a sensitivity analysis is conducted, where variables are assigned different values, and outcomes are re-evaluated. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the following variables: discount rates and number of approvals. See Table 8 below for details.

Discount rates

The central analysis used a 7% discount rate as recommended by TBS. The sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 3% discount rate have been used, as well as if there was no discounting.

Number of applications to be reviewed

The central analysis uses approximately 787 applications to be reviewed each year. The sensitivity analysis presents the results if this number was increased or decreased by 5%.

Table 8: Sensitivity analysis on total costs/benefits (present values in millions)

	Parameter	Total cost/benefit
Discount rate	Undiscounted	$16.20
	3%	$14.06
	7% table b5 note a	$11.84
Number of applications to be reviewed	− 5%	$11.25
	Approx. 787 table b5 note a	$11.84
	+ 5%	$12.43
Table b5 note(s) Table b5 note a Parameters used in the central analysis Return to table b5 note a referrer

Distributional analysis

As previously described, costs to users of NPP services are not equally distributed among provinces and territories. Overall, NPP users in the Atlantic region would bear about one-third of the total costs, as well as the largest share of costs associated with Category 2, Category 3 and Exemption fees, while NPP users in the Pacific region would bear most of the cost associated with Category 1 fees. Table 9 provides a breakdown of the costs by region.

Table 9: Costs distributed to regions, by fee category (present values in millions)

Region	Fee category	Total costs	Share of total costs (%)
Atlantic table b6 note a	Category 1	$0.02	31.59%
	Category 2	$1.13
	Category 3	$2.06
	Exemption	$0.53
	Sub-total	$3.74
PNR table b6 note b	Category 1	$0.05	20.35%
	Category 2	$0.42
	Category 3	$1.50
	Exemption	$0.45
	Sub-total	$2.41
Pacific table b6 note c	Category 1	$0.13	19.35%
	Category 2	$1.00
	Category 3	$1.12
	Exemption	$0.04
	Sub-total	$2.29
Quebec	Category 1	$0.03	16.19%
	Category 2	$0.80
	Category 3	$0.90
	Exemption	$0.18
	Sub-total	$1.92
Ontario	Category 1	$0.01	12.52%
	Category 2	$0.21
	Category 3	$1.21
	Exemption	$0.05
	Sub-total	$1.48
Total	$11.84		100%
Table b6 note(s) Table b6 note a Atlantic Region includes four provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Return to table b6 note a referrer Table b6 note b PNR (Prairie and Northern Region) includes Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories. Return to table b6 note b referrer Table b6 note c Pacific Region includes British Columbia. Return to table b6 note c referrer

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that there would be impacts on small businesses associated with the proposed Regulations.^{footnote 2}

General impacts to small business

The proportion of applications submitted to the NPP by small businesses varies year to year. Most NPP applications are submitted by large or medium-sized companies, or public sector organizations such as other levels of government. Based on a review of applicants to the NPP in fiscal year 2018–19 and publicly available information, 33 small businesses accounted for about 10.6 % of private sector applications. These companies received approvals for 46 applications for works which, under the proposed fee structure, would be subject to Category 1 or Category 2. For purposes of estimating the compliance costs to small business due to the proposed Regulations, it is assumed that 33 small businesses would submit 10.6% of private sector NPP applications for review every year over the analytical time frame, and these would be subject to Category 1 or Category 2. As a result, it was estimated that the proposed Regulations would result in an incremental cost of $0.40 million on small businesses, over the 10-year analytical period, or annualized cost of $57,162 ($1,732 per affected business) [Table 8].

The number of affected small businesses and the volume of applications to be reviewed from this class of applicant could vary, which would impact the total compliance costs and the amount attributed to each small business. However, since small businesses typically submit applications that would fall into Category 1 and Category 2 which have markedly lower proposed fees compared to Category 3, and NPP fees are not recurring, overall, the burden on small businesses is expected to be limited.

Considerations for the aquaculture sector

During consultations on the fee proposal, the aquaculture industry pointed out that most of the industry is comprised of small businesses (0–99 employees), and most shellfish farms are run by single individuals or families with a lower ability to absorb fees compared to larger companies. Stakeholders expressed concerns that fees could have a negative economic impact on the industry’s competitiveness in international markets and noted that the differences in typical business size and profitability between finfish and shellfish and other aquaculture operations would necessitate a tailored approach.

To address the aquaculture industry’s concerns and limit the impact to small businesses in this sector, aquaculture facilities have been divided into two distinct types of works.

To address small business concerns more generally, the fees would be phased in gradually over a three-year period, which would provide additional time before the full fees take effect. In addition, fees would not be charged for the removal or decommissioning of works.

Small business lens summary

• Estimated number of small businesses that apply to the NPP: 33 per year
• Number of years: 10 (2024 to 2033)
• Base year for costing: 2021
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 10: Compliance costs (present values in millions)

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Service fees (Category 1 and Category 2)	$0.06	$0.40
Total compliance cost	$0.06	$0.40

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply as there would be no incremental change in the administrative burden on business. Fees are not considered administrative burden. Although the proposal would introduce a new regulatory title, the title would not result in an incremental change in the administrative burden and, therefore, is not counted as a title “IN” for the purposes of the rule.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

This regulatory proposal does not have any explicit linkages to international agreements or obligations. However, for the purpose of comparability with NPP services and the proposed fees, other jurisdictions were examined to determine if they provide approval processing or permitting services with respect to works in navigable waters, and if so, how these compare to NPP activities.

In general, depending on the type of work proposed, approval and permitting requirements range widely. Various types of approvals may be required from federal, provincial/state/territorial or municipal governments, or from other regulators (e.g. Conservation Authorities). TC’s analysis focused on approval and permitting requirements for works in navigable waters where an assessment of impacts to navigation is performed, as this is the primary objective of the NPP’s application review process under the requirements of the CNWA.

Two international jurisdictions were found to charge fees for approval and permitting services with respect to works in navigable waters where an assessment of impacts to navigation is performed: the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). The analysis also looked at approval and permitting services for domestic works in navigable waters under the jurisdiction of large Canadian Port Authorities. Per the Port Authorities Operations Regulations, 11 ports are not subject to the requirements of the CNWA since they have the capacity to determine whether a work could interfere with navigation themselves, rather than relying on TC. In particular, fees charged by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) were examined.

The analysis concluded that the services provided by the other jurisdictions are not directly comparable to the services that the NPP provides. This is because, as noted, the NPP review is focused on impacts to navigation, while the US, UK and VFPA assessments of proposed projects can include other technical and environmental considerations, and consultations. Furthermore, each jurisdiction uses different criteria to define a work or activity, either individually or in groups, making direct comparisons across jurisdictions, or with NPP works and activities, challenging.

Sufficient information was also not available for the US, UK or VFPA regarding the costing methodology, proportion of costs recovered or fee pricing considerations to fully compare the fees charged to the proposed NPP fees. The proposed NPP fees were determined by first determining the full cost of the service, then a series of pricing considerations were applied to determine the proposed fee levels.

Although the services provided and fees charged by other jurisdictions are not directly comparable, these other jurisdictions still provide pertinent points of reference in regard to fee design and pricing for the review of applications for approval of works, which TC considered in the development of the proposed fee structure for the NPP. Of note, both the UK and VFPA’s pricing structures are based on the type of work, which is aligned with the NPP design. In addition, all jurisdictions examined apply fixed fees (as opposed to hourly or formula-based fees) which is also aligned to the NPP approach, though the UK structure also includes an annual charge element which TC is not pursuing.

The following provides an idea of the type of projects undertaken in other jurisdictions and associated fees and charges.

United Kingdom

To ensure that works do not endanger life or property by increasing the risk of flooding or causing harm to the environment, the UK Water Resources Act 1991 prohibits the construction of a structure in, over or under a watercourse which is part of a main river except with the consent of and in accordance with plans and sections approved by the Environment Agency. Since the UK process includes technical and environmental assessments, the regime has a broader scope than the NPP assessment focused on impacts to navigation.

The UK model features fixed permit application fees for various categories of works, as well as an “annual subsistence activity charge” to recover regulatory costs while the authorization is in force.

The UK Environment Agency charges $292 (all amounts in Canadian dollars) for an authorization to install an access culvert less than 5 metres in length, plus an annual charge of $117 while the permit is in force. Over a 10-year period, this would equal a total fee of $1,462. Permits for a vehicle bridge cost $1,661 plus $465 annually, for a 10-year total of $6,311, while a permit for a reservoir spillway costs $2,500 plus $640 annually, for a 10-year total of $8,900.

United States

The US Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) regulates activities that could obstruct or alter navigable waters of the US under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of  1899. Authorization is required from the Corps to conduct work in, over, or under navigable waters. The US charges nominal fixed fees based on the type of applicant. Individuals and non-commercial applicants are charged a fee of $13 for a standard individual permit; commercial and industrial applicants are charged a fee of $131. These fees, which could be characterized as nominal, are not charged to federal, state or local governments.

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

The VFPA is a shared governance organization responsible for the stewardship of federal port lands in and around Vancouver, British Columbia. The VFPA is the permitting authority for projects around Vancouver harbour and in the Fraser and North Fraser Rivers, and it conducts environmental reviews of projects in accordance with Section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act. The VFPA is exempt from the CNWA if the work is done by the port authority or on behalf of the port authority.

The VFPA’s consideration of project permit applications include technical and environmental reviews and any required municipal, stakeholder and community engagement and consultation with Indigenous peoples. Therefore, the review is broader in scope than the NPP which is focused mainly on impacts to navigation.

The VFPA groups project types into five categories based on the complexity of the project and the associated review. Category A works are minor in scale and may be temporary in nature, with predictable, minimal potential impacts. This category aligns closely to work types described in the CNWA’s Minor Works Order. No fees are payable to VFPA for an application review for approval in this category, nor are NPP fees proposed for minor works.

Category B works are also relatively minor in scale, such as shoreline protection, but have attributes requiring additional technical analysis and may require specialized mitigation. A fee of $500 is payable to obtain a permit for works in this category. Category C works include the same type of projects as Category B, but where consultation is required; the fee for a Category C work is $2,500. Categories D and E comprise increasingly complex project types which usually require a variety of supporting technical studies and consultation processes, including major dredging (Category D) and commercial marinas (Category E). Permit fees for Category D and E are $12,500 and $22,500, respectively.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, and the TC Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013), the strategic environmental assessment process was followed for this regulatory proposal and a Sustainable Transportation Assessment was completed. No important environmental effects are anticipated as a result of this proposal. The assessment took into account potential effects to the environmental goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.

Gender-based analysis plus

Users of the NPP’s services are varied and include a diverse group of proponents, including industry, private individuals, Indigenous peoples, federal departments, provincial and territorial governments and municipalities. The proposed Regulations would benefit Canadian taxpayers and are not expected to have differential impacts to the users of the NPP’s services on the basis of identity factors such as gender, race, sexuality, religion, or others.

As part of its consultation process, TC heard from a variety of stakeholders including provinces, territories, municipalities, and Indigenous people and communities. TC also heard from industry, including the aquaculture, mining, nuclear, hydropower, oil and gas, cattle and beef industries. No concerns about impacts related to gender or other identity factors were identified.

As noted, about 96% of the aquaculture industry is comprised of small businesses, with most shellfish farms run by single individuals or families, with a likely lower ability to absorb fees. With this in mind, TC has considered whether the regulatory proposal could disproportionally impact rural communities, small businesses, and aquaculture facilities operated by individuals or families and has considered whether the proposed fees may create barriers to equal participation in the aquaculture industry due to compliance costs. To address any potential impacts, TC adjusted the proposed fees for the aquaculture industry, in particular for the shellfish industry, with a view to minimizing financial impact on smaller businesses and those that tend to be in more rural and remote communities. TC is also proposing a phase-in period for fees, to minimize the impact of the fees on industry in the short term.

The proposed fees are likely to have a varied impact on Indigenous communities. Imposing fees ensures that those who create interferences to Canadians’ and Indigenous people’s right to navigate are responsible for costs associated with application review for the interferences. A variety of views regarding the impacts of the regulatory proposal on Indigenous and remote communities were heard during consultations. It was suggested that First Nations that apply for approval of works in their traditional territories should be exempted from application processing fees. Certain Indigenous groups suggested a fee exemption could offset the financial burdens placed on Indigenous communities when they participate in consultations in respect of applications for approval of works. TC is not proposing to exempt projects constructed by Indigenous communities from fees primarily because Indigenous applicants receive the same benefits from the NPP’s application review services as all other clients. Moreover, there are no fee exemptions for Indigenous peoples in any TC cost recovery regulations.

To help offset the financial burdens placed on Indigenous communities when they participate in consultations related to applications for approval of works, contribution funding is available through TC’s Indigenous Participant Funding Program. The objectives of this Program are to:

• Support consultation related to decisions and discussions on proposed policy initiatives related to the CNWA and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act (WAHVA) and/or;
• Provide capacity support for activities, such as Indigenous-led studies, that promote long-term benefits aligned with the objectives of the CNWA and the WAHVA and/or;
• Support outreach, collaboration and partnership between TC and Indigenous communities and organizations in the implementation of the CNWA and the WAHVA.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed Regulations would come into force upon registration.

Applications received prior to the coming into force date of the proposed Regulations would not be subject to fees. However, applications received after the coming into force date, and which are subsequently determined by the NPP to be a complete application, and which would require an approval or exemption in order for the project to proceed, would be subject to fees in accordance with the fee phase-in schedule as presented in Table 2 under “Description” above.

Payment would be required after TC has notified the proponent that an application has been properly completed and submitted. Work by the NPP to review an application would not commence until payment is received. TC accepts a number of forms of payment, including online payment, electronic funds transfer, cheque, and in person at a TC Centre. However, it is expected that most applications would be submitted through the NPP external application website, which would include an online payment step.

TC is developing guidance and explanatory materials to ensure that the new fees are applied consistently, and to ensure that users of NPP services clearly understand how and when the fees would be applied, how each work type is defined, and what their responsibilities and liabilities would be under the proposed Regulations. These materials would be ready before the new fees come into force.

In accordance with the Service Fees Act, as noted, the proposed fees would be indexed annually, based on the applicable Consumer Price Index published by Statistics Canada, beginning on April 1, 2024, for application review for approval of exemptions and April 1, 2028, for application review for approval of works. The inflation-adjusted fee levels and the date they would come into effect would be published in TC’s Fees Report and would be made available annually on the TC website.

Compliance and enforcement

Requirements for compliance and enforcement of the CNWA are already in place under the Act. With respect to the payment of the fees being proposed under these Regulations, any fees owing would constitute a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Financial Administration Act.

Service standards

To support the implementation of the proposed Regulations, TC is currently developing a tracking tool. The proposed service standards – for both an application review for a work and an application review for an exemption – provide that within five business days of acknowledgement to the proponent of receipt of a complete application that requires an approval or OIC, TC will make available a tracking tool within the NPP external submission website to enable the proponent to track the status of their application. The cost of developing this tool is being managed within existing resources.

In cases where the service standard is not met, a portion of the fee would be remitted to the client in accordance with the Service Fees Act, the Treasury Board Directive on Charging and Special Financial Authorities and TC’s Policy on Remissions.

Contact

Donna McLean
Director
Operations and Regulatory Development
Indigenous Relations and Navigation Protection Program
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street, 20th Floor, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N8
Email: NPPHQ-PPNAC@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, under subsection 28(1)^{footnote a} of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act ^{footnote b}, proposes to make the annexed Canadian Navigable Waters Act Fees Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Donna McLean, Director, Operations and Regulatory Development, Indigenous Relations and Navigation Protection, Programs Group, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (email: NPPHQ-PPNAC@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, October 23, 2023

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Canadian Navigable Waters Act Fees Regulations

Application for Approval

Fees

1 An owner who proposes to construct, place, alter or rebuild a work of a type that is set out in column 1 of the schedule and that corresponds to the description of the type of work in column 2, must pay to the Minister the fee indicated in the table to this section that corresponds to the applicable category of the schedule at the time an owner submits an application for an approval referred to in subsection 5(1) or in paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, whichever applies.

TABLE

Item	Column 1 Period	Column 2 Fee payable ($) — Work listed under Category 1 of the schedule	Column 3 Fee payable ($) — Work listed under Category 2 of the schedule	Column 4 Fee payable ($) — Work listed under Category 3 of the schedule
1	Ending on March 31, 2025	275	770	2,365
2	Beginning on April 1, 2025 and ending on March 31, 2026	350	980	3,010
3	Beginning on April 1, 2026 and ending on March 31, 2027	425	1,190	3,655
4	Beginning on April 1, 2027	500	1,400	4,300

More than one work

2 If an application for an approval concerns more than one work, the fee payable is the sum of the fees required for each of the works.

Application for Exemption

Fee and payment

3 A fee of $66,000 is payable to the Minister at the time an application is submitted for an exemption referred to in subsection 24(1) of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act.

Consequential Amendment

4 Subsections 13(2) and (3) of the Navigable Waters Works Regulations ^{footnote 3} are repealed.

Coming into Force

Registration

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

SCHEDULE

(Section 1)

List of Work Types

Item	Column 1 Work Type	Column 2 Description
Category 1
1	Boathouse	Structure designed for the shelter and storage of vessels.
2	Boat lift	Structure designed to secure and store a vessel by lifting the vessel out of the water.
3	Dock — recreational	Structure connected to the shore, lying alongside or projecting into the water, for the berthing of vessels for recreational usage.
4	Fountain	Structure from which one or more jets of water are pumped into the air.
5	Helicopter logging area	Area demarcated by ropes, booms or other similar works in the water used for dropping of logs brought by helicopter.
6	Mooring system	A single mooring buoy and a mooring line that attaches to the vessel.
7	Raft	Anchored floating platform that is not connected to the shore and that may be used for the practice of nautical activities and/or the mooring of vessels for the private usage of a residential owner.
8	Scientific equipment	Device or structure placed in, on, over, under, through, or across the water for the purpose of monitoring or recording data.
9	Slipway and boat-launching ramp — recreational	Any type of inclined path or structure, such as a marine railway, by which vessels can be launched into or retrieved from the water, for the private usage of a residential owner.
10	Swim area	Area for swimming that has been demarcated from the rest of the navigable water by ropes, booms or other similar works.
Category 2
11	Aerial cable	Cable that is in the air, such as a telecommunication or power cable or a zipline, including the towers and poles from which it is suspended.
12	Aquaculture facility — other than finfish	Facility used to produce harvestable freshwater, estuarine or marine plants and/or shellfish.
13	Cofferdam	Watertight enclosure pumped dry to permit construction work below the waterline.
14	Culvert	Opening allowing water to pass through an obstruction.
15	Dock — commercial	Structure connected to the shore, lying alongside or projecting into the water for the berthing of vessels for commercial or public usage.
	(a) Jetty	Structure or path generally made up of rubble and concrete.
	(b) Pier	Structure raised on pilings that extends into the waterway from the shore and is primarily used by people to walk or to berth vessels requiring deeper water to load or unload goods or to board or disembark passengers.
	(c) Wharf	Structure used to load or unload goods or to board or disembark passengers from vessels without integrated machinery serving such a purpose.
16	Dredging	Excavation of material from the bed of a body of water.
17	Dumping site	Site for the dumping of materials excavated from the bed of a navigable water.
18	Embankment	Wall or bank of earth or stone built to prevent the flooding of an area, except for low-lying lands.
19	Environmental/fish habitat compensation structure	Any type of structure designed to create a habitat for fish and protect certain species or to compensate for the loss of environmental resources.
	(a) Artificial reef	Human-created underwater structure, typically built to support marine life.
	(b) Fishway	Structure used to facilitate the migration and movement of fish around artificial or natural barriers, also known as a fish ladder.
20	Erosion protection work	Any type of structure designed to protect against erosion.
	(a) Berm	Structure used to control erosion and sedimentation by reducing the rate of surface runoff.
	(b) Groyne	Rigid structure built out into the water from the shore to control and protect against erosion.
	(c) Riprap	Rock or other material used to protect shoreline structures against scour and erosion due to water, waves or ice.
21	Fence	Any type of upright structure, placed in a body of water, that encloses an area to mark a boundary, control access or prevent intrusion or escape.
	(a) Counting fence	Structure, generally composed of nets and poles, used for counting and measuring fish and other aquatic species.
22	Fish trap	Device for catching fish that consists of a net or another structure which diverts the fish into an enclosure.
23	Floating park	Floating structure used for commercial or public use, such as a water amusement park or play area.
24	Geotechnical testing	Drill rig and its associated platform and equipment that are used for the excavation of the bed of the navigable water to investigate the physical properties of earthworks and foundations around a potential construction project. This work type includes all boreholes done for a specific project or within the footprint of a planned work.
25	Geothermal loop	Device placed in a loop system in a body of water to capture geothermal energy for heating or cooling.
26	Log dumping area	Area demarcated by ropes, booms or other similar works in the water where logs are dumped or stored, including facilities with a ramp for the loading or unloading of logs from the water to land.
27	Nautical sports utilities structure	Structure used for the practice of nautical sports.
	(a) Nautical sports jump	Ramp used in water sports to perform jumps.
	(b) Slalom course	Series of buoys that create a designated course.
28	Outfall	Point of conveyance, such as a drain or pipe, of wastewater or other effluents into a body of water.
29	Platform	Floating or suspended platform, generally used for commercial purposes.
	(a) Scaffolding	Structure installed on, or close to, a work and used to facilitate access to the said work for various purposes such as repair, construction and inspection.
30	Retaining wall	Wall used to separate elevated land from a waterway.
31	Rock reinforcement	Structure offering additional support to another structure or natural banks to improve their stability and load-carrying capacity.
32	Shore laying	Laying of sand, rocks or boulders to enlarge a shore or create a new shore that is integrated with and follows the bank of the navigable water, but does not include a work intended to protect against erosion.
33	Silt curtain	Structure, often of a temporary nature, placed in the water to control and contain silt and sediment disturbed by construction activities in or near a body of water, dredging operations and/or rainwater runoff.
34	Slipway and boat-launching ramp — commercial	Any type of inclined structure, path, track, approach or road for commercial or public use, by which vessels can be launched into or retrieved from the water.
35	Spillway	Structure generally used to control the release of water from a dam or levee downstream, typically into the bed of the dammed body of water.
36	Stilling well	Pipe connected to a main body of water or flow channel to dampen waves or surges while allowing the water level in the well to rise and fall with the major fluctuations of, the main body of water or flow channel.
37	Submarine cable	Cable of any kind submerged or buried under the bed of a body of water.
38	Walkway	Raised passage or path across a body of water for walking and connecting different parts of an area.
39	Water filtration system	Structure placed in a body of water to treat, clean and purify water.
40	Water intake	Structure used for collecting water from a body of water and conveying it via pipeline.
41	Winter road crossing	Structure placed into a navigable water to aid the formation of ice to create a frozen water surface for crossing over.
Category 3
42	Aquaculture facility — finfish	Facility used for the production, maintenance and breeding of finfish.
43	Artificial island	Land mass that is created artificially.
44	Boom and barrier	Structure placed in the water to control and contain oil, floating debris, invasive aquatic plants, trash and turbidity, or any other type of obstruction that is strung across a stretch of navigable water to control or block navigation.
	(a) Debris boom	Structure designed to contain or deflect debris in an area, such as aquatic plants, floating particles, plastic packaging and branches.
	(b) Ice boom	Structure designed to retain ice and maintain water flow.
	(c) Log boom	Structure designed to collect and/or contain floating logs.
	(d) Protective barrier	Structure designed to protect a certain area from tides, vessels or other hazards.
	(e) Safety boom	Safety and security structure that restricts the circulation of vessels or swimmers or acts as a safety barrier for dams or against obstructions.
45	Breakwater	Structure designed to protect an anchorage, harbour or other work from the effects of weather conditions and waves.
	(a) Floating breakwater	Floating wave attenuator used to protect an area from waves.
46	Bridge	Elevated structure carrying a road, path, railroad or any other similar thing across a body of water.
47	Building	Any type of structure having a roof or walls constructed on a body of water and not otherwise identified in this Schedule.
	(a) Floating building	Building with a flotation system that is moored or secured and not used for navigating.
	(b) Heliport/landing pad	Structure constructed in a body of water used for landing and takeoff of helicopters.
	(c) Observation tower	Tower used to observe the surroundings.
48	Canal	Artificial watercourse constructed often in a size suitable for navigation.
49	Causeway	Raised path, railway or road across a body of water, typically made of compacted earth, sand and rocks.
50	Dam	Structure designed to hold back water and raise its level, forming a reservoir.
51	Dolphin	Structure consisting of closely driven piles used as a fender for a dock or as a mooring or guide for vessels or other works.
52	Drilling platform	Structure with facilities for well drilling and deep-sea mining for minerals that are contained in rock formations beneath the seabed.
	(a) Oil production platform	Structure with facilities for well drilling to explore, extract, store and process petroleum and natural gas that are contained in rock formations beneath the seabed.
53	Dyke	Continuous structure generally built parallel to shore to regulate and to contain water along low-lying land and to regulate its effects, or to guide its flow.
54	Ferry cable	Cable connected to both shores and used to guide a ferry across a body of water.
55	Harbour	Group of structures that provide shelter from rough waters and bad weather to anchored vessels and allows for the loading or unloading of goods or the boarding or disembarking of passengers.
56	Infill	Dumping of fill in a concentrated area for construction or development.
57	Lock	Confined section of a canal or other waterway in which the water level can be changed using gates and sluices, used for raising and lowering vessels between two gates.
58	Marina	Group of structures that provide mooring or berthing capacity for recreational vessels and often offer supply, repair and other facilities required for the use of the vessels.
59	Mooring facility	A group of more than eight mooring systems situated within a concentrated area and belonging to the same owner, offering mooring services to vessels.
60	Pilings	Posts driven vertically into the bed of a waterway to support the foundations of a structure.
61	Pipeline	Pipe for conveying oil, gas, water, sewage, etc.
62	Power project	Any type of facility that generates power.
	(a) Hydro-electric station	Structure, generally associated with a dam, that generates hydroelectric power.
	(b) Tidal turbine	Turbine used to harness tidal power by converting tidal energy into other forms of power, including electricity.
	(c) Wind turbine	Structure that converts the wind’s kinetic energy into electrical energy using turbines.
63	Scuttled vessel	Vessel that has been deliberately sunk by allowing water to flow into the hull.
64	Spud barge	Flat-bottomed vessel moored by steel shafts or through-deck piling that is used for the construction, placement, alteration, rebuilding, removal, repair or decommissioning of another work.
65	Terminal	Structure with integrated machinery used to load and unload container vessels, bulk carriers, tanker ships or roll-on roll-off vessels or to board or disembark passengers to from cruise ships.
	(a) Deep water terminal	Structure with integrated machinery used to load and unload very large vessels that may require water depth of 9.144 m (30 feet) or more.
	(b) Ferry terminal	Structure that generally has integrated mechanisms used exclusively to board or disembark passengers from cruise ships on established and regular routes.
66	Tunnel	Underground passageway that allows crossing beneath a waterway.
	(a) Underwater corridor	Underwater corridor or passageway containing supporting structures for cables and joints and/or other elements of wiring systems and whose dimensions allow people to pass freely throughout its entire length.
67	Water control structure	Structure designed to manage water levels and flows in channels and pipes.
	(a) Water diversion	System of structures that diverts water from an area upstream to an area downstream of a section of a body of water or toward another body of water.
68	Weir	Structure that is built across a body of water and used to slightly raise the water level on the upstream side and allow a steady flow of water over it.
	(a) Fish weir	Structure, generally made of rock or concrete, placed entirely or partially across a body of water and used to direct the passage of or trap fish.
	(b) Submerged weir	Submerged structure that is built across a body of water and used to slightly raise the water level on the upstream side and allow a steady flow of water over it.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Privacy notice

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

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

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

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

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

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