Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 158, Number 25: Regulations Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Environmental Response)

June 22, 2024

Statutory authority
Canada Shipping Act, 2001

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

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

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 Consequently, the regulatory framework is out of date and does not reflect how response practices have evolved.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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the ERR do not establish minimum response equipment requirements for OHF operators north of 60°N as is the case for operators that are south of 60°N. Since there are no ROs operating north of 60°N, OHF operators in that region must have procedures in place to respond to a spill up to the total amount of oil that can be transferred at their facilities, to a maximum of 10 000 tonnes. However, this requirement does not include any specific response equipment requirements. Operators south of 60°N are not required to have these procedures, since they must have an arrangement with an RO, but they are required to have a minimum amount of response equipment on site, based on their level of classification. The inconsistency in response equipment requirements can mean that OHF operators north of 60°N may not have a sufficient amount of response equipment on site and must rely on the vessels transferring oil at their facilities or the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) to provide equipment in the event of a spill, potentially delaying response operations.

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

Background

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

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

• Oil tankers of at least 150 gross tonnes;
• Vessels of at least 400 gross tonnes; and
• Groups of vessels (a vessel being pushed or towed by a tug) with a combined total of at least 150 tonnes.

The CSA 2001 is the principal legislation governing ship-source oil pollution preparedness in Canada. It requires that OHF operators and prescribed vessels have plans in place to immediately respond to an oil spill. It also requires that OHF operators and prescribed vessels have arrangements for oil spill response services with an RO to operate in Canadian waters. Given that there are not any ROs operating north of 60°N, OHF operators and prescribed vessels are only required to have an arrangement with an RO to operate in Canadian waters south of 60°N. The CSA 2001 requires OHF operators and ROs to have plans in place to respond to ship-source oil spills, with the details of what is to be included in these plans to be prescribed in regulation.

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

Since there are no ROs operating north of 60°N, OHF operators in this region must have procedures in place to respond to a spill up to the total amount of oil that can be transferred to or from a vessel at their facilities, up to a maximum of 10 000 tonnes. In contrast, OHF operators south of 60°N are required to have a minimum amount of equipment on site to respond to oil spills of specific sizes based on their oil transfer rate capacity to or from a vessel. For instance, for OHFs that can transfer up to 150 m³ of oil per hour, the operator must have enough equipment to respond to a spill of up to 1 m³. For OHFs that can transfer more than 2 000 m³ per hour, the operator must have enough equipment to respond to a spill of up to 50 m³. OHF operators south of 60°N are not required to have procedures in place to respond to the largest spill size at their facility, since they are required to have an arrangement with an RO to provide spill response services.

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

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

• Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC);
• Eastern Canada Response Corporation Ltd. (ECRC);
• Atlantic Environmental Response Team (ALERT); and
• Point Tupper Marine Services Ltd. (PTMS).

The four ROs are certified by TC every three years according to the requirements set out in the ROR and Response Organization Standards (PDF) to respond to ship-source oil spills of up to 10 000 tonnes. The 10 000-tonne threshold is not intended to indicate the largest spill size to which ROs are able to respond, but to set a general benchmark for oil spill preparedness. In the event of a larger spill, ROs have mutual aid agreements with other ROs, jurisdictions and international organizations to obtain additional resources as needed. The ROs were last certified in 2022 and would be certified again in late 2025, prior to when the proposed Regulations are expected to be registered.

The ROR require ROs to establish a detailed response plan demonstrating that they have a minimum level of equipment, resources, and procedures in place to effectively respond to ship-source oil pollution incidents in their geographical areas of responsibility, up to 10 000 tonnes. The ROR also require ROs to describe the training of their personnel and other individuals who may be involved in their response plans, and to account for areas of environmental and socio-economic sensitivity within their geographical area when developing response procedures and plans. Environmental and socio-economically sensitive areas can include sites such as the habitats of endangered species, commercial fisheries, sites of Indigenous cultural significance, or sites with important infrastructure such as small craft harbours. Response organizations are also required to establish and implement an exercise program every three years to evaluate the effectiveness of their response plans.

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

It is important to note that the ROR are focused on preparedness and seek to ensure that ROs have a sufficient level of resources positioned throughout their geographical areas of response so that they would be able to respond to an oil pollution incident within the timelines. An emphasis is placed on preparedness to deploy or deliver equipment instead of on actual response operations timelines, as there is a range of external factors that are beyond an RO’s control and can impact its response time, such as bad weather, and sea and safety conditions preventing the RO personnel from reaching the spill site or operating there.

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

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

Objective

The objective of the proposed Regulations is to enhance marine safety and environmental protection by strengthening Canada’s ship-source oil spill preparedness regulations governing the TC-certified ROs and OHF operators. The proposed Regulations aim to

• Improve oil spill response planning and preparedness by requiring the development of sub-regional area response plans (ARPs), establishing an activation time standard, and implementing formalized exercise program requirements; and
• Support compliance monitoring and enforcement by clarifying existing requirements, enhancing reporting requirements and establishing administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) for new requirements.

Description

The proposed Regulations would establish new requirements and amend existing requirements for ROs and OHF operators, consolidating them within the ERR. The ROR would consequently be repealed.

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

Proposed amendments for ROs

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

Inserting existing standards into Regulation

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

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

Tailoring response plans to local and regional conditions

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

Rating equipment capacity

The proposed Regulations would require ROs to use a calculation formula in their response plans to demonstrate the rated capacity of their equipment to recover and temporarily store oil from a spill site. Currently, ROs use, as a best practice, a formula found in guidance material to calculate the amount of oil their equipment is able to clean up from a spill site to demonstrate that they have enough equipment to respond to a spill of up to 10 000 tonnes. To provide greater clarity and transparency regarding how an RO’s equipment capacity is assessed, this formula would be included in the Environmental Response Standards and it would be incorporated by reference into the proposed Regulations. A draft of the equipment capacity standard, including the calculation formula, will be available on the TC website and open to the public for comments throughout the 75-day pre-publication period.

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

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

Listing contractors and additional resources

The proposed Regulations would require ROs to list in their response plans the contractors and third-party vessels they use to provide services and equipment to implement their response operations. As part of their response plans, ROs would also provide a declaration attesting that the resources and equipment covered in their response plans, including contractors and third-party vessels, are available and that the ROs are capable of implementing the procedures in the plan. This would involve obtaining written confirmation from their contractors that they are capable of performing the tasks for which they are assigned and have the necessary certifications to operate. This would help ensure that these resources are appropriately accounted for and verified in the ROs’ response plans. The ROs would be ultimately responsible for their contractors as it is their obligation to ensure they meet the response capacity to which they are certified.

Time standards

To ensure ROs are well prepared to respond to oil spills as soon as practicable, the proposed Regulations would establish a new activation time standard. Currently, ROs have procedures and resources to activate their response plans, but the timelines to complete the activation process vary. Under the proposed Regulations, ROs would need to ensure that they are prepared to complete the activation of their response plans within 2 hours of being contracted to respond to an oil spill incident, regardless of the size or location of the spill. Activating a response plan could include measures such as conducting an initial incident assessment and mobilizing personnel and equipment to be transported to the site. This proposed amendment would not adjust the overall time frames under which an RO would need to deploy or deliver equipment to the spill site under the existing response time standards. For example, in the case of a 150-tonne spill at a designated port, the RO would still be expected to deploy the necessary equipment within 6 hours of being contracted, but they would be expected to complete the activation of their response plan within the first 2 hours of the 6-hour period. This would provide greater assurance that an RO takes immediate steps to implement its response plan, especially in cases where they are not required to have the equipment delivered to the site for up to 72 hours.

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

The proposed Regulations would also establish a time standard for completing shoreline recovery operations. Under the existing ROR and Response Organizations Standards, ROs must have procedures in place to treat a minimum of 500 m of shoreline per day. The proposed Regulations would further require ROs to have procedures in place to be able to complete the on-water portion of shoreline recovery operations within 50 days of deploying equipment at the site. This would include instances where remobilization techniques, such as flushing oil off the shore back into the water, are used to recover the oil.

Exercise program

The proposed Regulations would also expand and formalize the exercise program requirements for ROs. Currently, the ROR require ROs to establish and implement an exercise program to evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects of their response plans by the end of their three-year certification period. However, the ROR do not specifically indicate the type or number of exercises that must be done. In general, ROs conduct notification exercises, during which they practise and evaluate their ability to notify all parties involved with implementing their response plan, as well as oil spill simulation exercises during which they practise certain elements of their response plans through undertaking oil spill scenarios. The simulation exercises are also used to demonstrate and assess an RO’s response equipment, procedures, and strategies. The proposed Regulations would identify the minimum number and type of exercises that must be done in an RO’s geographical area of responsibility. Specifically, an RO would be required to complete

• At least four notification exercises per year for each PAR to verify an RO’s ability to notify all those involved in implementing its response plan; and
• At least eight oil spill simulation exercises in each PAR every three years.

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

The eight oil spill simulation exercises would be classified according to the four oil quantities described under the response time standards: 150 tonnes, 1 000 tonnes, 2 500 tonnes and 10 000 tonnes. Within their total of eight exercises, ROs would need to include a scenario for responding to 80% of each oil spill size, namely

• At least one scenario of a spill of at least 120 tonnes in a PAR;
• At least one scenario of a spill of at least 800 tonnes in a PAR;
• At least one scenario of a spill of at least 2 000 tonnes in a PAR; and
• At least one scenario of a spill of at least 8 000 tonnes in any PAR.

ROs would also need to conduct at least one oil spill simulation exercise, simulating one of the oil spill quantities listed above, in each of their ERAs. These ERA exercises would count towards one of the eight exercises required per PAR.

ROs would only be required to exercise at 80% of the spill size captured under the response time standards, as this would effectively assess their ability to respond to oil spills of these sizes without being too burdensome for the ROs to complete. The measures involved in activating and deploying equipment for a spill of 2 000 tonnes, for example, would not be significantly different from those for a spill of 2 500 tonnes and would be sufficient to assess the RO’s capability of responding to spills within this range.

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

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

Response organizations would also need to demonstrate to TC how they have attempted to include the participation of various parties in their exercises, such as local Indigenous and coastal communities and other jurisdictions and stakeholders. Under the current ROR, ROs are required to coordinate their exercises with vessels, OHF operators or the CCG, given that these parties would play an active role in response efforts to an oil pollution incident. The proposed Regulations would require ROs to attempt to involve a broader range of groups that could be directly impacted by a ship-source spill and may have a role or vested interest in response efforts. Involvement would depend on factors such as the nature of the exercise and the level of interest and expertise of the local group, and it could include roles such as being an observer, providing local advice and knowledge or undertaking specific response operations.

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

Reporting and notification requirements

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

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

Non-compliance with this requirement would be designated as a violation under the Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations and be subject to an administrative monetary penalty of up to $100,000.

Reviewing and submitting response plans and publishing fees

The ROR currently require ROs to review and update their response plans at least once per year and to provide the Minister four copies of their plans each time that the plans are submitted. Four copies were originally required so the response plan could be distributed to the national, regional and district TC offices responsible for reviewing the plan. In 2019, the Canada Transportation Act was amended to allow regulated parties to submit required documents to the Minister in an electronic format, and ROs have since met the requirement to submit their response plans by sending one electronic copy to TC as a standard practice. Therefore, in order to align with modern practices, the proposed Regulations would enable ROs to submit one electronic copy of their response plans.

The proposed Regulations would also require ROs to review their response plans after each ship-source oil spill to which they respond to identify opportunities for improvement and maintain records of these assessments for at least three years.

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

Currently, the ROs publish their fees in Part I of the Canada Gazette as a standard practice, stemming from a previous Canada Shipping Act requirement. Given industry’s familiarity with this process and that the Canada Gazette is broadly available to all Canadians, the proposed Regulations would formally require ROs to publish their fees in Part I of the Canada Gazette.

Suspending or cancelling a response organization’s certificate

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

Proposed regulatory amendments for OHF operators

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

For instance, the proposed Regulations would harmonize the minimum response equipment requirements for OHF operators north and south of 60°N. As noted in the “Issues” section, there is currently an unintended gap in these requirements. Accordingly, the proposed Regulations would require OHF operators north of 60°N to maintain the same minimum levels of response equipment as operators south of 60°N to ensure a consistent minimum level of oil spill response readiness at OHFs across the country, regardless of where the facility is located.

The proposed Regulations would also clarify how OHFs are classified to better reflect their actual oil transferring operations. Currently, the ERR classify OHFs from Class 1 to Class 4 based on the maximum amount of oil they transfer to or from a vessel. For instance, an OHF that can transfer up to 150 m³ of oil per hour is classified as a “Class 1” facility, and the operator is required to have enough equipment and resources available to immediately respond to a discharge of 1 m³ of oil. A Class 4 facility is one that can transfer more than 2 000 m³ of oil per hour, and the operator is required to have enough equipment and resources to immediately respond to a discharge of at least 50 m³. However, many OHF operators transfer oil through multiple lines and, in some cases, to or from multiple vessels at the same time. When considering the total amount of oil that can be transferred simultaneously, some facilities would actually be classified at a higher class and would therefore need to have additional response equipment on site to be prepared to immediately respond to larger oil spills based on their class classification. To ensure that OHFs are accurately classified based on their actual oil transferring capacity, the proposed Regulations would classify OHFs based on their actual transfer rate.

Transport Canada is also proposing to update the exercise program requirements for OHF operators. Currently, OHF operators are required to establish an exercise program to assess the effectiveness of their emergency plans, but they are not explicitly required to implement these programs or report on the results of the exercises. For clarity and certainty, the proposed Regulations would require operators to include in their emergency plans a schedule for conducting exercises. Operators would also be required to provide a post-exercise report within 90 days after completing the exercise that includes information such as “lessons learned” and any gaps identified in their emergency plans. These reports would need to be maintained for at least three years.

The proposed Regulations would make several updates with respect to training and post-incident reporting. Specifically, OHF operators would need to include the dates and frequency of training provided with respect to their emergency plans, similarly to what they currently do for prevention plans. As there are currently no requirements with respect to how long an OHF operator must maintain their records, the proposed Regulations would also require OHF operators to maintain records of training on their prevention and emergency plans for at least three years and provide them to the Minister upon request.

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

The proposed Regulations would revise the time frames for when OHF operators must complete and submit updated prevention and emergency plans to the Minister. Currently, operators must review their plans at least once a year and any time that a change or gap to business processes or operations is identified that could affect the transferring of oil at their facilities. In the case of such a change, an operator must update its plan within 90 days of the event and submit the updated plan to the Minister within one year of having made any changes to the plan. This means that TC might not receive an updated plan until 455 days after the operator has identified a need to review and update its plan. To ensure that TC receives updated plans in a timelier manner, the proposed Regulations would require operators to submit the updated plan to the Minister within 90 days of one of these events happening.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Transport Canada posted a discussion paper on Let’s Talk Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) from May 5 to July 27, 2018, to seek broad feedback on how it could improve the regulations and standards for ROs. Transport Canada received a total of seven written submissions from four industry groups, two provincial and municipal bodies and one Indigenous group in British Columbia, in addition to 23 responses from the public posted directly on the Let’s Talk OPP website. The majority of the organizations that provided written submissions called for response plans to be more tailored to local conditions to ensure effective response and supported increased local community participation in spill response. While the Indigenous group and the municipal and provincial bodies supported faster response times, two industry associations argued that any changes to the response times would need to be based on risk assessments and spill probability scenarios at regional and national levels so that changes would not arbitrarily increase the operational burden for ROs. The Indigenous group and the provincial body also called for additional ports to be designated under the ROR to ensure greater and faster response capacity, particularly along the west coast. The public comments received through the Let’s Talk OPP website were primarily focused on the broader oil industry and the Trans Mountain Pipeline project, which are outside the scope of the proposed Regulations.

Transport Canada held 28 engagement session and bilateral meetings with industry, Indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, provinces, and local communities from May 2018 to March 2019. These meetings took place in the Pacific, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic and National Capital and were focused on gathering feedback on the current standards. Concerns raised in 2018–2019 engagement sessions helped shape the current proposed amendments. Many of the issues raised by stakeholders and Indigenous communities in 2018–2019 were reconfirmed in more recent consultations.

Many partners and stakeholders were supportive of the current Canadian regime and highlighted the importance of ensuring a robust level of oil spill preparedness. Areas identified for enhancement included:

• Ensuring that the standards are more risk-based and tailored to local conditions;
• Improving response time standards;
• Ensuring greater response capacity for oil spills beyond 10 000 tonnes;
• Enhancing the evaluation and certification of ROs; and
• Increasing community and stakeholder participation in planning, preparedness, and response.

The proposed Regulations would address many of these issues, as outlined in the “Description” section above. Transport Canada is currently not proposing to include amendments requiring ROs to increase their response capacity beyond 10 000 tonnes. Ship-source oil spills beyond this amount are rare and have not happened in Canada for the last 50 years. It would be highly costly for ROs to maintain a response capacity beyond 10 000 tonnes, especially given that such incidents are highly unlikely. Furthermore, Canadian ROs have mutual aid agreements with other response partners that enable them to secure additional resources as needed to respond to spills that are beyond their capacity. Transport Canada plans to update the Environmental Response Standards to provide additional technical guidance related to the proposed Regulations. This guidance would include the best practice that ROs include the activation of their mutual aid agreements in an exercise at least once every three years to ensure that they are well prepared to activate them if needed during response operations.

Transport Canada has also held regular consultations on proposed changes to the ROR with the four certified ROs since 2018. The ROs are supportive of clarifying response and preparedness requirements, emphasizing that they already undertake many of the preparedness requirements and activities that would be mandated under the proposed Regulations. They also emphasized that more public awareness and education regarding Canada’s marine oil pollution incident preparedness and response system could help to alleviate many stakeholder concerns.

Transport Canada inspectors regularly hold discussions with OHF operators as they conduct inspections, assess exercise programs and review response plans. This provides a forum for feedback and dialogue. Since the ERR came into force, some OHF operators have raised concerns regarding administrative burdens in updating their emergency plans, as well as uncertainty in how they are to comply with certain requirements. Specifically, operators have stated that the requirement to include in their emergency plans the names of those responsible for carrying out those plans was an unnecessary burden that requires them to update them plans every time there are staffing changes. Some operators have expressed uncertainty about how their facilities should be classified in cases where they can transfer oil via multiple lines to and from multiple vessels, given that the current Regulations only discuss single transfers to or from a single vessel. In addition, operators generally support the concept that OHF operators be required to implement the exercise programs described in their plans. As mentioned in the “Description” section, the proposed Regulations would respond to most of these issues by removing the requirement to include the names of personnel in an OHF operator’s response plans and clarifying the criteria for classifying OHFs.

Transport Canada conducted further engagement by posting a discussion paper on the Let’s Talk Transportation website from December 2023 to February 2024 to seek feedback on the proposed Regulations. The discussion paper was shared with Indigenous groups, and stakeholders such as industry, and provincial/territorial governments across the country. Transport Canada also offered to meet with stakeholders to discuss any concerns. During this period, Transport Canada received 14 written submissions from 5 OHF operators and associations; 4 Indigenous communities or organizations; 2 ROs; 2 industry members; and one member of the public. Transport Canada also met with 6 Indigenous organizations representing 16 Nations.

Overall, respondents supported amending the regulatory requirements for ROs and OHF operators to enhance oil spill preparedness, with the ROs and OHF operators noting that they implement many of the proposed changes as best practice.

The Indigenous groups and industry stakeholders supported requiring the development of sub-regional area response plans; however, some Indigenous groups stated that mechanisms should be put in place to require ROs to seek and integrate the perspectives of Indigenous peoples in these plans. Transport Canada encourages ROs to engage with local Indigenous and coastal communities in developing their sub-regional plans. Requiring ROs to invite local Indigenous and coastal communities to participate in exercises would also provide an opportunity for these communities to share their perspectives and concerns with respect to sub-regional plans in their areas, as well as to identify areas of cultural, economic, and environmental significance that should be considered in the plans.

Some Indigenous groups also noted that capacity building and support should be provided to enable the participation of local Indigenous communities in exercises. The role local Indigenous and coastal communities would have in participating in an exercise would depend on various factors, such as the nature of the exercise and the interests of the participants. Any community interested in participating in a local exercise would be encouraged to discuss with the RO what their role would be and what would be needed to participate.

Some Indigenous groups expressed that ROs’ and OHF operators’ plans should be made publicly available to enhance transparency and to support better coordination in response planning and operations. These plans can contain proprietary and commercially sensitive information and it would therefore be inappropriate to require them to be made available to the public. However, as noted above, participation in exercises would provide an opportunity for local communities to become more aware of response planning and operations in their area. It should also be noted that oil spill response operations involving multiple response partners are often coordinated through the establishment of incident command structures. These mechanisms ensure that all parties involved work together to mitigate the risk of duplicative or conflicting response efforts.

An Indigenous group and RO also called for TC to certify ROs beyond 10 000 tonnes, recognizing that commercial vessels such as oil tankers can carry well in excess of this amount. As noted above, the 10 000-tonne threshold is not intended to limit an RO’s response capacity but to set the minimum level of preparedness ROs must meet to be certified. Response organizations also have mutual aid agreements in place with other organizations to secure additional resources as necessary where further capacity is required.

Feedback from both written submissions and meetings reconfirmed many of the same concerns from 2018 to 2019. For instance, two Indigenous groups, one RO and an industry association called for designating additional ports and identifying new ERAs to enhance oil spill preparedness, especially along the northern coast of British Columbia. Several Indigenous groups questioned whether the new two-hour activation time standard would substantively support improved response times and called for shortening the existing response time standards to support faster response actions.

Transport Canada is currently not proposing to change the list of designated ports as part of these proposed Regulations. Ports are designated under the ROR based on internal TC national policy that considers factors related to the risk and potential severity of an oil pollution incident, such as the volume of oil transferred at the port and the density and volume of vessel traffic in the port area. The policy also considers whether a port has the infrastructure to support a warehouse capable of storing sufficient response equipment to respond to at least a 150-tonne spill (ROs are required to maintain this level of equipment at a designated port). Based on this policy, no additional Canadian port would meet the criteria to be designated.

The existing response time standards are linked to the designation of ports and identification of ERAs. Therefore, any changes to these standards would need to be considered as part of a review of the national port designation policy. Transport Canada is committed to reviewing this policy and will engage on this process once a concrete time frame for a review has been established. This work will require significant policy analysis and engagement, and TC has therefore prioritized the proposed Regulations that include measures that TC is ready to implement in the near term.

For this reason, TC is proposing to maintain the existing response time standards, with the addition of the response plan activation time standard. This new activation requirement would support effective oil spill response times and complement existing requirements for prescribed vessels and OHF operators to immediately activate their on-board and facility emergency plans to address spills as soon as they are identified. In this way, some oil spill response measures could be underway before the RO arrives on the scene.

There was general support for the proposed changes to the requirements for OHF operators. Some OHF operators and an industry association sought further detail and clarification on the proposed changes to the classification criteria for OHFs and exercise requirements for OHF operators. The “Description” section above details how OHFs would be classified under the proposed Regulations. As discussed in the “Baseline and regulatory scenarios” section below, this proposed change is expected to affect very few facilities. The proposed Regulations would not stipulate the number of exercises OHF operators must conduct, but rather clarify that these operators must implement the exercise program described in their emergency plans.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposal is likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect. The analysis identified treaty obligations with respect to engagement and consultation with modern treaty signatories, and consideration of their advice and recommendations in making federal decisions that affect marine areas, marine shipping, and oil spill emergency response plans within signatories’ traditional territories.

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

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

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

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

Instrument choice

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

Option 1: Enhanced policy measures

Under this option, the current regulations would remain in place, with TC providing policy and technical guidance to ROs. For instance, this guidance could include details on how ROs should develop their ARPs, exercise programs and response plan activation procedures, and what should be included in them. Transport Canada could also provide policy and technical guidance recommending more frequent reviews and updates of RO and OHF operator plans, the minimum amount of equipment OHF operators should maintain as a best practice, and clarifying how OHFs should be classified.

However, because this policy and technical guidance would not be mandatory, TC would face challenges in monitoring adherence to these measures and would not be able to enforce them. While the Minister of Transport would continue to have the discretion to suspend or not renew the certificate of an RO for public interest reasons, it would not be feasible to rely on such an approach to address non-compliance with voluntary measures.

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

Option 2: Proposed Regulations

Under this option, the proposed Regulations would be implemented and supported by a revised Environmental Response Standards document providing additional technical guidance about how the new requirements are to be implemented.

This approach would support enhanced and more consistent response planning and preparedness among ROs by establishing specific requirements with respect to ARPs, activation procedures, and exercise programs that all ROs would need to follow.

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

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

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

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

Although the proposed Regulations are anticipated to result in a net cost of $1.09 million over the 11 years after they are registered, TC expects that the qualitative benefits of the proposed Regulations in enhancing marine safety and environmental protection by improving ship-source oil pollution preparedness would justify these monetized costs.

Regulatory analysis

The proposed Regulations would amalgamate the ROR into the ERR, which would affect ROs and OHFs, respectively. Overall, the proposed Regulations would formalize voluntary practices and introduce new requirements that contribute to strengthening oil spill response preparedness and clarifying the intent of certain current provisions. The total net cost of the proposed Regulations is estimated to be $1.09 million between 2025 and 2035 (present value in 2023 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2025 at a 7% discount rate), with $1.51 million in costs and a total benefit of $420,652 over the analytical time frame.

Analytical framework

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

Benefits and costs associated with the proposed Regulations are assessed based on comparing the baseline against the regulatory scenarios. 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 because of the proposed Regulations. Further details on these two scenarios are presented below.

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

Stakeholder profile

The proposed Regulations would affect 4 ROs, 224 OHF operators and TC. Of the 4 ROs, ECRC, PTMS and ALERT respond to spills in the east coast while WCMRC is the only RO operating in the west coast. OHFs are located across Canada both south and north of 60°N.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

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

Response organizations

Under the baseline scenario, response organizations (ROs) are required to submit their updated oil spill response plans to TC annually, which includes elements such as records of personnel trained, contractors and high-level information on treatment and oil recovery in sub-regional areas within their GAR. In addition, ROs have ARPs for sub-areas within their GAR but are not required to reflect information on issues such as the nature of vessel traffic in these areas. Also, as best practice, all ROs currently provide TC with an electronic copy of their response plans. Transport Canada currently inspects each RO annually and uses their plans to verify the needed information.

All ROs are required to establish and conduct an exercise program during the three-year certification period, but the specific number and type of exercises completed are set through best practice and in consultation with TC. Specifically, they all conduct at least four notification exercises per PAR (ECRC has seven PARs and the others have one PAR each). In addition, WCMRC, ALERT and PTMS each conduct at least eight oil spill simulation exercises per PAR in each certification period, while ECRC^{footnote 2} conducts 54 such exercises.^{footnote 3} The frequency of oil spill simulation exercises during a three-year period depends on the category of the exercise (based on the four oil quantities described earlier):

• Tier 1 and Tier 2: Each RO conducts one Tier 1 and one Tier 2 exercise annually per PAR (60 in total: 42 by ECRC and 18 by the other ROs);
• Tier 3: ECRC conducts an average of 11 exercises (4 in the first year, 3 in the second and 4 in the third year), while each of the other ROs conduct one exercise per PAR; and
• Tier 4: ECRC conducts one exercise and each of the other ROs conduct one exercise per PAR.

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

Further, ROs are required to have procedures to deploy or deliver the necessary equipment within a given time frame after being contracted to respond to an incident, based on the size and location of the spill. These procedures are verified by TC during an exercise. All ROs also have procedures to complete shoreline cleanups within 50 days of deploying their equipment.

Finally, various requirements for ROs and OHFs related to response plans and TC notifications are already subject to AMPs under the Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations.

Under the regulatory scenario, ROs would be required to provide additional information in their response plans annually (e.g. the resources needed to protect and treat areas of environmental sensitivity, and contracted vessel certification) and the nature of vessel traffic in their ARPs. Transport Canada would continue to inspect each RO annually. Further, ROs would need to ensure that they are prepared to complete their activation processes within two hours of being contracted to respond to a spill, which TC would verify during an exercise. TC would also review the procedure in their response plans. In addition, ROs would need to notify TC when they respond to either ship-source oil spill incidents and non-ship-source oil spill incidents that could affect their capacity to respond to ship-source oil spills (it is assumed that ROs would notify TC via email). ROs would also need to ensure that a broader range of groups (e.g. Indigenous communities) are invited to coordinate their response operation in exercises, and would need to provide evidence of their coordination efforts to TC. A copy of an email sent to a range of interested groups and TC, as is currently done in the baseline scenario, would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance.

Furthermore, during a three-year period, all ROs would also be required to conduct at least 4 notification exercises per PAR and at least 8 oil spill simulation exercises per PAR. The proposed Regulations would align with ROs’ practices under the baseline scenario, except for ECRC, which would conduct 13 Tier 3 exercises instead of 11 (assuming 5 in the first year, 4 in the second year and 4 in the third year).^{footnote 4} Transport Canada would attend these additional exercises and ECRC would need to reflect it in their response plan.

Each RO would carry out one oil spill simulation exercise as an unannounced exercise once TC has finalized the development of unannounced exercises (expected to start in 2029). Transport Canada would also attend and collaborate with ROs in developing objectives for the oil spill simulation and unannounced exercises. Moreover, best practices such as providing an electronic copy of response plans, completing shoreline cleanups within 50 days of deployment, submitting post-exercise reports to TC within 45 days of an exercise, and conducting at least one exercise within an ERA would be formalized in the proposed Regulations.

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

Oil handling facilities operators

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

• Class 1: 133 OHFs are inspected once (assuming 45 OHFs in the first year, 44 OHFs in the second and 44 OHFs in the third year);
• Class 2: 59 OHFs are inspected once (assuming 20 OHFs in the first year, 20 OHFs in the second and 19 OHFs in the third year);
• Class 3: 16 OHFs are inspected annually; and
• Class 4: 16 OHFs are inspected annually.

OHF operators are required to develop prevention and emergency plans containing general information on their procedures and facilities, such as information on the descriptions and dates of personnel training. Transport Canada has observed that all OHF operators voluntarily maintain these training records. Operators are also required to submit their updated prevention and emergency plans to TC annually. In the case of a significant change (such as change in business practice or identified deficiency in the plan), the plan must be updated within 90 days and submitted within one year after the update. Moreover, OHF operators south of 60°N (171 OHFs) must identify, review, and/or update in their plans the name of personnel authorized to implement the pollution emergency plan. As a current practice, operators south of 60°N also provide the position titles of the personnel authorized to implement the plan.

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

Furthermore, OHF operators are required to establish an exercise program in their plans but are not expressly required to conduct the exercises or to develop post-exercise reports. Nonetheless, TC experts estimate that, as a current practice, 213 operators each conduct one exercise every three years (a total of 71 exercises annually), while 11 operators located in remote locations do not conduct exercises.

Under the regulatory scenario, the classification for OHFs would be revised, and TC estimates that this would result in 10 OHFs (all south of 60°N) being reclassified from a Class 2 to a Class 3 facility. These facilities would therefore require additional response equipment and undergo a total of 20 additional inspections during a three-year period. As a result, TC’s three-year inspection planning would need to be revised as follows:

• Class 2 — 49 OHFs would be inspected once (17 OHFs in the first year,16 OHFs in the second and 16 OHFs in the third year); and
• Class 3 — 26 OHFs would be inspected annually (7 additional OHFs in the first year, 6 additional OHFs in the second year, and 7 additional OHFs in the third year).

OHF operators would continue to submit their prevention and emergency plans to TC annually. In case of significant events, the plans would need to be updated and submitted to TC within 90 days of the occurrence. OHF operators would also need to include additional information in the plans, such as the frequency of training provided. Further, the proposed Regulations would formally require operators to maintain training records of employees. At the same time, all operators of OHFs (regardless of their locations) would need to identify, review, and/or update in their plans the position title of personnel authorized to implement the pollution emergency plan. Moreover, all operators would not need to provide records of training certifications for each employee in their oil pollution prevention plans.

Furthermore, OHF operators would need to develop post-incident reports for oil pollution incidents at facilities and submit them to the Minister within 90 days after the day on which the incident occurred. OHF operators north of 60°N would be required to maintain a minimum amount of on-site equipment to respond to specified volumes of oil spills. Finally, the proposed Regulations would require each OHF operator to conduct exercises established in their plans (TC expects the current best practice of at least one exercise per OHF in three years to continue), indicate when exercises would take place, review their exercise schedule in their emergency plans as needed, develop a post-exercise report per exercise, and maintain a record of the exercise reports.

Key assumptions and data

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

• Each RO responds to four ship-source oil spill incidents per year;^{footnote 5}
• For each RO, ship-source oil spill incidents would increase by 2% per year starting in 2022 due to increased vessel traffic;^{footnote 6}

Only ship-source oil spill incidents on the west coast (under the responsibility of WCMRC) would increase 13% in 2024 due to increased vessel traffic related to west coast projects,^{footnote 7} then 7.5%^{footnote 8} in 2025 and onward;

• Each RO responds to four non-ship-source oil spill incidents per year;^{footnote 9} and
• ROs would bear compliance costs across three-year periods (i.e. 2026–2028, 2029–2031 and 2032–2034) and be recertified in late 2028, 2031 and 2034.

It should be noted that assumptions associated with ship-sourced oil spill incidents are made based on the projected increase in shipping traffic in Canadian waters without considering preventative measures being put in place to reduce the likelihood of increased incidents. Some qualitative research suggests that the number of marine oil spills and amount of oil spilled worldwide has decreased due to improved safety measures.^{footnote 10} Thus, these assumptions likely represent the upper-bound cost scenario during the analytical time frame for the proposed Regulations.

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

• ROs — $125 per hour (aggregated wage for three employees at different levels, involved in updating plans, relevant documents and verifying information);^{footnote 11}
• OHF operators — $68.75 per hour;^{footnote 12} and
• TC employees — $56.50 per hour for an employee at the GT-05 level, $62.85 per hour at the GT-06 level and $72.04 at the GT-07 level.^{footnote 13}

Benefits

The proposed Regulations would codify best practices and update existing requirements and establish new ones to enhance oil spill response planning, preparedness, and compliance monitoring. This would support more localized environmental protection efforts and is expected to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of ROs to respond to spills. Most of the expected benefits are described qualitatively due to lack of information, except for the removal of two OHF requirements resulting in estimated monetized benefits of $420,652 in total.

Aligning with best practices

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

Improving compliance monitoring

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

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

Supporting environmental protection

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

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

Potential enhancement of response time

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

Removal of some requirements for OHFs

Once the proposed Regulations come into force (see the “Implementation” section for details), OHF operators south of 60°N would no longer need to identify in their plans the names of personnel responsible for implementing the emergency plan. This would mean that OHF operators south of 60°N would not need to update their emergency plans just to reflect staffing changes. Additionally, all OHF operators would no longer need to provide information found in records of training certifications for each employee. The removal of these two requirements is expected to save one employee four hours per OHF every year. In addition, TC would no longer need to review such information, which is expected to save one employee at the GT-05 level 30 minutes per OHF every year. Therefore, the total cost saving is expected to be $420,652, of which $381,468 would be attributed to OHF operators and $39,184 to TC.

Costs

The proposed Regulations would impose new requirements on ROs, OHF operators and TC, which are expected to result in a total cost of $1.51 million, of which $145,464 would be carried by ROs, $1.10 million by OHF operators, and $264,837 by TC.

Costs to response organizations

1. Additional information

Response organizations would need to review and provide additional information in their response plans, which would take about 15 hours per RO in 2026, and 8 hours annually thereafter. Each RO would also need to spend 2 hours in 2026, as well as one hour per year thereafter, to verify the certifications of contracted vessels. Moreover, ROs would need 3 hours per ARP^{footnote 14} in 2026 and 30 minutes per ARP in 2031 to reflect the nature of vessel traffic in their areas of response. Based on TC observations, ROs would only provide such information twice within the analytical time frame since vessel traffic-related information is not expected to significantly change within the time frame.

Since additional pieces of information on contracted vessels and training records would be reviewed and verified during TC inspections, it is expected that one employee (with an hourly wage of $41.67^{footnote 15} per RO would spend 1.75 hours annually, starting in 2026, to accompany TC inspectors. As a result, ROs are expected to bear a total cost of $58,567.

2. Incident notifications

In order to confirm ROs’ capacity to respond to a ship-source oil spill, ROs would have to notify TC of their involvement in both non-ship-source oil spills and ship-source oil spills, which, assuming that notifications would be done via email, would require 15 minutes per spill. Based on key assumptions, it is estimated that WCMRC would respond to a total of 76 ship-source oil spills,^{footnote 16} while the other three ROs would each respond to 49 ship-source oil spills^{footnote 17} over the analytical time frame. As mentioned in the key assumptions, it is further estimated that all the ROs would each respond to 4 non-ship-source spills. This is expected to result in a total cost of $8,317.

3. Exercise programs

It is expected that in each three-year period, ECRC would design and conduct two additional tier 3 exercises at a total cost of $30,000^{footnote 18} (undiscounted), one in the first year and the other in the second year^{footnote 19} (seven total additional exercises across the analytical time frame), and would need two hours in 2026 to update the response plan to reflect these additional exercises. Additionally, each RO would need four hours in 2026, as well as 30 minutes per year thereafter, to add the description of the two-hour activation procedure to their response plans. In total, the changes to the exercise programs are expected to result in a cost of $78,580 to ROs.

Costs to oil handling facilities

1. Classification and minimum equipment

As previously explained, 10 oil handling facility (OHF) operators would be inspected annually instead of once every three years due to the reclassification of their facilities from Class 2 to Class 3, which would require each to spend three hours per additional inspection. These operators would also need to purchase additional equipment, which is estimated to cost $1,500^{footnote 20} (undiscounted) per year. Moreover, it is estimated that five OHF operators north of 60°N would bear a cost of $2,250^{footnote 21} (discounted) in 2026 and in 2031, respectively, to meet the proposed minimum on-site equipment requirement. As a result, affected OHF operators are expected to bear a total cost of $133,057.

2. Additional information

Operators of 53 OHFs north of 60°N would need to spend 40 minutes in 2026, as well as 15 minutes per year thereafter, to identify in their plans the position titles of personnel authorized to implement the pollution emergency plan. In addition, each of these operators would need to spend 15 minutes accompanying TC inspectors as they would need to review and verify this additional piece of information during each inspection, following the three-year inspection frequency as follows: 18 OHFs in the first year; 18 OHFs in the second year; and 17 OHFs in the third year.

Furthermore, each operator of the 224 OHFs would need two hours in 2026, as well as 15 minutes per year thereafter, to update their plans to include the frequency of training of personnel, and an additional 30 minutes, per inspection, to accompany TC inspectors to review and verify the information related to personnel training. All OHFs would also need 15 minutes annually to reflect and to review their exercise schedule in their emergency plans.

As a result, operators of OHFs are expected carry a total cost of $108,924. It should be noted that OHF operators would require the same resources to submit the updated plans to TC if a significant event occurs under the baseline and regulatory scenarios. However, should the submission take place in the previous year under the regulatory scenario, these operators would bear a minimal cost due to the utilization of discount rates.

3. Incident reports

It is estimated that 20 oil pollution post-incident reports would be developed every year. Therefore, two OHF employees would need 16 hours in total to develop one report, and one employee would need one hour to prepare it for submission to TC. Therefore, the total cost associated with incident reports is estimated to be $164,176.

4. Exercise program

Eleven OHF operators in remote locations, that do not currently conduct an exercise voluntarily, would need to conduct one exercise, at an average cost of $12,500^{footnote 22} (undiscounted) in the three-year periods as follows: four exercises in the first year; four exercises in the second year; and three exercises in the third year.

Additionally, each of the 224 OHF operators would be required to develop and maintain the record of a post-exercise report, which would require them to spend 10 hours and 5 minutes, respectively. During the three-year periods, it is assumed that 75 OHF operators would develop and maintain a post-exercise report in the first year, 75 operators in the second year, and 74 operators in the third year of each three-year period. This is expected to result in a total cost of $689,493 over the analytical period.

Costs to the Government of Canada (represented by TC)

1. Additional detailed information

One TC employee at the GT-05 level would need 8.25 hours in 2026, as well as 6.5 hours per year thereafter, to review additional information added to each RO’s response plan, as well as to verify the certification of contracted vessels and personnel training records during an inspection. In addition, the employee would need 5 hours in 2026 to review the information on the nature of vessel traffic per ARP. However, from 2027 onwards the employee would allocate 3 hours per ARP for ECRC, to review if any information has been provided, but one hour per ARP for other ROs, given that ECRC has the largest GAR and sub-areas.

For OHFs, during inspections, one employee at the GT-05 level would need an additional 15 minutes per OHF to review and verify new information provided by 53 OHFs north of 60°N in their plans. The employee would also need 45 minutes per OHF to review additional training information in plans and training records for all 224 OHFs and 15 minutes per OHF to review their exercise schedule (refer to the “Baseline and regulatory scenarios” section above for inspection frequency).^{footnote 23}

Therefore, TC is expected to incur a total cost of $125,181.

2. Incident notifications and reports

One TC employee at the GT-07 level would need to spend 10 minutes reviewing one oil spill notification submitted by ROs, regardless if they are ship-sourced or non-shipped sourced spills. In addition, one employee at the GT-05 level would require one hour to review each of the post-incident reports submitted by OHF operators.^{footnote 23} Therefore, TC is expected to incur a total cost of $11,583.

3. Exercise programs

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

• one employee at the GT-05 level would need to attend ECRC’s two additional exercises and review the related exercise information in each three-year period (an additional 7 hours and 30 minutes per exercise);
• one employee at the GT-06 level would need 30 hours to develop one unannounced exercise for each RO in 2026, 15 hours in 2031 and 2034 to update each exercise, and 5 hours to develop one unannounced exercise report;^{footnote 24}
• two employees at the GT-05 level would need 8 hours in total per RO, one employee at the GT-06 level would need 4 hours per RO, and one employee at the GT-07 level would need 4 hours per RO to create one post-exercise briefing document for unannounced exercises;
• one employee at the GT-05 level would need to participate in meetings to develop objectives for oil spill simulation exercises (an additional 5 hours per tier 1 and tier 2 exercise, an additional 10 hours per tier 3 exercise and an additional 24 hours per tier 4 exercise). It is expected that these 268 meetings across the analytical time frame would take place at the same frequency as the exercises discussed earlier; and
• one employee at the GT-05 level would need one hour in 2026, as well as 30 minutes per year thereafter, to review the 2-hour activation information in each RO’s plan.

The changes proposed to exercise programs for OHFs would require 7.5 hours of one employee at the GT-05 level to attend each of the additional exercises from the 11 OHFs discussed above that do not currently conduct exercises, as well as 20 minutes to review each of the post-exercise reports submitted by operators of all 224 OHFs.

As a result, TC would incur a total cost of $118,917.

4. OHF classification

One TC employee at the GT-05 level would need three hours to conduct each additional inspection of the 10 OHFs that would be reclassified, which would result in a cost of $9,156.^{footnote 23}

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

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of years: 11 (2025–2035)
• Base year for costing: 2023
• Present value base year: 2025
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 1: Monetized costs (present value)

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	2025	2026	Annual average (2027 to 2034)	2035	Total (present value)	Annualized value
TC	Review additional information	$0	$23,483	$11,647	$8,522	$125,181	$16,694
	Review information on incidents	$0	$1,497	$1,154	$853	$11,583	$1,545
	Verify exercise and two-hour activation compliance	$0	$20,596	$11,210	$8,641	$118,917	$15,858
	Inspect reclassified OHFs	$0	$1,267	$900	$689	$9,156	$1,221
	Subtotal	$0	$46,843	$24,911	$18,705	$264,837	$35,318
ROs	Capture additional information	$0	$27,142	$3,624	$2,436	$58,567	$7,810
	Provide incident reports	$0	$964	$3,624	$2,436	$8,317	$1,109
	Exercises and two-hour activation	$0	$16,121	$838	$651	$78,580	$10,479
	Subtotal	$0	$44,227	$8,086	$5,523	$145,464	$19,398
OHFs	Classification and equipment	$0	$25,882	$12,352	$8,359	$133,057	$17,744
	Capture additional information	$0	$37,106	$8,225	$6,020	$108,924	$14,526
	Provide incident reports	$0	$21,846	$16,306	$11,883	$164,176	$21,894
	Exercise program	$0	$95,304	$67,794	$51,839	$689,493	$91,949
	Subtotal	$0	$180,138	$104,677	$78,101	$1,095,650	$146,113
All stakeholders	Total costs	$0	$271,208	$137,674	$102,329	$1,505,951	$200,829

Table 2: Monetized benefits (present value)

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	2025	2026	Annual average (2027 to 2034)	2035	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Government	Review less information in OHF plans	$0	$5,214	$3,892	$2,836	$39,184	$5,225
OHFs	Capture less information	$0	$61,187	$37,887	$27,610	$381,468	$50,871
All stakeholders	Total benefits	$0	$66,401	$41,779	$30,446	$420,652	$56,096

Table 3: Summary of monetized costs and benefits (present value)

Impacts	2025	2026	Annual average (2027 to 2034)	2035	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Total costs	$0	$271,208	$137,674	$102,329	$1,505,951	$200,829
Total benefits	$0	$66,401	$41,779	$30,446	$420,652	$56,096
Net cost	$0	$204,807	$95,895	$71,883	$1,085,299	$144,733

Qualitative impacts

Positive impacts

• (1) Continuous improvement of oil spill response preparedness as ROs, OHFs and TC would be able to proactively identify and address any gaps in response plans through their exercise programs.
• (2) ROs would have better procedures for areas of environmental sensitivities, which could support pollution mitigation efforts from oil spills in these specific areas.
• (3) Establishes an equal and efficient level of response preparedness across Canada by aligning the proposed Regulations and best practices.
• (4) An increase in compliance monitoring would support the federal government’s objective of creating a world-leading marine safety system.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens^{footnote 25} concluded that the proposed Regulations would impact small businesses in Canada. Based on the available information and TC experts, two ROs (PTMS and ALERT) are small businesses. As previously discussed, these ROs would be required to provide additional information in their response plans, present certain new information to TC during inspections, notify TC of both ship-sourced and non-ship-sourced oil spill incidents and conduct an additional exercise. Using the same methodology and assumptions on time and wage rates that are presented above, it is estimated that the proposed Regulations would result in an incremental total cost of $29,774 for small businesses, or an annualized cost of $1,985 per business, between 2025 and 2035.

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

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

Small business lens summary

• Number of small businesses impacted: 2
• Number of years: 11 (2025 to 2035)
• Base year for costing: 2023
• Present value base year: 2025
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 4: Compliance costs

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Capture additional information	$3,050	$22,868
Total compliance cost	$3,050	$22,868

Table 5: Administrative costs

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Notify TC of ship-source and non-ship-source oil spills	$519	$3,892
Present documents on contracted vessels and training records to TC inspectors	$402	$3,014
Total administrative cost	$921	$6,906

Table 6: Total compliance and administrative costs

Totals	Annualized value	Present value
Total cost (all impacted small businesses)	$3,971	$29,774
Cost per impacted small business	$1,985	$14,887

One-for-one rule

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

The 4 ROs and the 224 OHF operators would see an increase in administrative cost. As previously discussed, ROs would be required to do the following administrative activities: (1) present the proof of contracted vessels’ certification and personnel training records; and (2) notify TC of non-ship-source and ship-source oil pollution incidents. With regard to OHF operators, they would need to submit their incident reports to TC and accompany TC inspectors when they review the following information during inspections: (1) the post exercise reports; and (2) the position title of employees authorized to implement emergency plans and frequency of training mentioned in their plans.

The proposed Regulations would also remove some administrative burdens for ROs and OHF operators. As previously discussed, the proposed Regulations would no longer require ROs to submit four copies of their response plans to TC; instead, one copy would be required, which is expected to be in digital format aligning with current practice for ROs. It is assumed that one employee per RO would require eight minutes to submit the plan digitally to TC.^{footnote 26} For the purpose of the one-for-one rule, it is assumed that, under the baseline scenario, ROs would submit four physical copies of their response plans to TC, which would result in (1) 532 printed pages annually per RO^{footnote 27} ($0.07 per page);^{footnote 28} (2) four binders per RO to organize each printed copy;^{footnote 29} (3) one flat rate box annually per RO to mail the copies to TC;^{footnote 30} and (4) one employee per RO requiring two hours^{footnote 31} to prepare for the submission to TC. Also, the proposed Regulations would remove the administrative requirement for OHF operators to provide in their plans detailed information found in training records.

Using the methodology developed in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, and assumptions and data discussed above, it is estimated that the proposed Regulations would result in an annualized administrative cost of $1,996 to businesses (or an annualized cost of $8.75 per business), and an annualized administrative saving of $8,802 (or an annualized saving of $38.60 per business). Therefore, the net impact annualized administrative burden cost saving would be $6,806 (or an annualized administrative burden cost saving of $29.85 per business, present value in 2012 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2012 with a 7% discount rate for a 10-year period between 2025 and 2034).^{footnote 1}

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

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

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

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

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

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

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

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 (SEA) process was followed for this proposal, and a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required. The scan found that the proposed Regulations would have a positive environmental effect by contributing to the prevention and mitigation of environmental damage in the event of an oil pollution incident. However, the impacts are not expected to be significant since the ROs already undertake many of the proposed requirements to varying degrees.

Gender-based analysis plus

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

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

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

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed Regulations would come into force one year after they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to provide regulated parties sufficient time to modify their response plans and business practices to comply with the changes. Response organizations and OHF operators would need to have updated their plans by the time they submit the annual update of their plans to the Minister following this one-year compliance period.

Response organizations and OHF operators would be notified by TC via email once the proposed Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. This communication would also outline the timelines for when they would need to be in compliance with new requirements. A similar email would be shared with Indigenous organizations via TC distribution lists, and stakeholders such as shipping associations via the Canadian Marine Advisory Committee (CMAC) distribution list. In addition, ROs and OHF operators would continue to be updated on the progress of this regulatory project at national meetings of the CMAC.

Before the proposed Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, other industry stakeholders, such as shipping companies and associations, would be informed of the proposed regulatory changes through regular communication tools, such as updates on the TC website and email notifications sent via the CMAC membership list.

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

Compliance and enforcement

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

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

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

Service standards

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

Contact

Manager
Environmental Response Regulations
Oceans Protection Plan
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C, 9th Floor
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: EnvResRegs-RegsIntEnv@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, under paragraphs 35(1)(d)^{footnote a}, (e)^{footnote b} and (f)^{footnote b}, subsection 182(1)^{footnote c} and paragraphs 244(f)^{footnote d} and (h)^{footnote e} of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 ^{footnote f}, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Environmental Response).

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 75 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 addressed to Manager, Environmental Response Regulations, Oceans Protection Plan, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 9th Floor, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5 (email: EnvResRegs-RegsIntEnv@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, June 13, 2024

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

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

Environmental Response Regulations

1 Section 1 of the Environmental Response Regulations ^{footnote 32} is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

designated port

means a port described in Part 1 of Schedule 1. (port désigné)

enhanced response area

means a marine region described in Part 3 of Schedule 1. (secteur d’intervention intensive)

geographic area

means the area in respect of which a response organization is certified under subsection 169(1) of the Act. (zone géographique)

operating environment

means sheltered waters, unsheltered waters or a shoreline. (milieu d’utilisation)

primary area of response

means a marine region described in Part 2 of Schedule 1. (secteur primaire d’intervention)

recovered materials

means oil waste and oily-water waste in either liquid or solid form recovered during a response. (matières récupérées)

sheltered waters

means waters where on-water recovery operations for discharged oil can be carried out effectively without significant disruption by environmental conditions. (eaux abritées)

treat

means to take measures, in a manner that has the least detrimental impact possible on the environment, for the purpose of restoring, to the extent possible, an operating environment in which an oil pollution incident has occurred to its condition before the incident. (traiter)

unsheltered waters

means waters where on-water recovery operations for discharged oil may be significantly disrupted by environmental conditions. (eaux ouvertes)

2 The portion of section 5 of the Regulations before the table is replaced by the following:

Classes

5 For the purposes of sections 167.1 to 167.4 and subsections 168(1) and 168.01(1) of the Act, classes of oil handling facilities at which operations are carried out in relation to the loading or unloading of oil to or from a vessel referred to in section 2 are established according to their actual oil transfer rate, as set out in the following table:

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

Exception

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

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

Notification of Proposed Change to Operations

Time limit – section 168.01 of the Act

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

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

• (i) in the case of a facility of a class set out in column 1 of the table to section 5, describes the procedures to be followed to respond to a discharge of a quantity of that oil product of at least

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

• (ii) s’agissant d’une installation située au nord du 60^{footnote e} parallèle de latitude nord, une description de la procédure d’intervention à suivre pour répondre à un rejet d’hydrocarbures de la quantité totale du produit d’hydrocarbures qui pourrait être chargée sur un bâtiment ou déchargée à partir de celui-ci, jusqu’à un maximum de 10 000 tonnes métriques,

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

• (B) the types of vessels in each class referred to in section 2 to or from which the oil product is loaded or unloaded,

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

• (c) the activities to be carried out in the event of an oil pollution incident, the order in which and the time within which those activities are to be carried out and the position of the persons responsible for carrying them out, taking into account the following priorities:

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

• (f) the position of the persons who are authorized and responsible for ensuring that the response to an oil pollution incident is immediate, effective and sustained;

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

• (h) a description of the training provided or to be provided to the oil handling facility’s personnel or other persons in preparation for the responsibilities that they may be requested to undertake in response to an oil pollution incident, including the frequency of the training;
• (i) a description of an oil pollution incident simulation exercise program that is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures, equipment and resources set out in the plan and that is coordinated with the Minister and, where possible, with the persons, entities or vessels who would be involved in an incident or who may be requested to respond in the event of an incident;
• (i.1) a schedule for implementing the exercise program;

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

Notification – exercise

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

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

Annual review

12 (1) The operator of an oil handling facility must annually review and, if necessary, update the oil pollution prevention plan and the oil pollution emergency plan.

Notice

(1.1) The operator must notify the Minister in writing as soon as feasible if there is no update to the plans.

Review and submission – events

(2) The operator must also review the oil pollution prevention plan and the oil pollution emergency plan each time either of the following events occur and, if necessary, update those plans and submit the up-to-date plans to the Minister no later than 90 days after the day on which the event occurred:

• (a) the identification of a deficiency in either of the plans after an oil pollution incident or an oil pollution simulation exercise; and
• (b) any change in the business practices, policies or operational procedures of the facility that could affect the loading or unloading of oil to or from a vessel.

Submission of updates to Minister

(3) If the operator updates either plan under subsection (1), the operator must submit the up-to-date plan to the Minister no later than one year after the day on which it submits the initial plan, the most recent annual update or the most recent notice to the Minister under subsection (1.1), as the case may be.

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

Procedures

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

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

Records and Reports

Training record

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

Retention and Ministerial access

(2) The operator must retain the training record for a period of at least three years after the date of the training or, if the training is valid for more than three years, until the date that the validity period ends. The operator must make the record available to the Minister upon request.

Exercise report

15 The operator of an oil handling facility must submit a report to the Minister within 90 days after the day on which it conducts an exercise under paragraph 11(1)(i). The exercise report must include the following information:

• (a) the date the exercise was conducted;
• (b) a description of the simulation;
• (c) a description of the objectives of the exercise, the means used to meet the objectives and an indication of whether the objectives were met; and
• (d) any deficiencies that were identified, a description of the actions that are planned to address those deficiencies and any possible improvements that could be made to the oil pollution emergency plan or to future exercises.

Oil pollution incident report

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

Submission of report

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

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

PART 3
Response Organizations

Response Capacity and Response Plan

Quantity of oil

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

Content – response plan

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

• (a) the response organization’s name and address;
• (b) a description of its geographic area and an indication of the designated ports, the primary areas of response and any enhanced response areas in the geographic area;
• (c) the name and position of each member of its permanent personnel who has duties and responsibilities in the event of an oil pollution incident;
• (d) a list of the contractors contracted by the response organization to respond in the event of an oil pollution incident as well as a description of their responsibilities in the event of such an incident, and, if applicable, the number of each contractor’s employees that may be requested to respond at the location affected by the incident;
• (e) the procedures to be followed for notifying personnel and contractors;
• (f) a list of the vessels that are not owned by the response organization that may be used to support its response to an oil pollution incident as well as the function of each vessel during response operations;
• (g) the procedures to be followed for treatment in its geographic area in response to an oil pollution incident;
• (h) the procedures to be followed to obtain any approval from a governmental authority required in respect of the measures to be taken for the activities referred to in paragraphs 22(a) to (g);
• (i) a list of the types and quantity of equipment required to treat 150 tonnes of discharged oil in each designated port in its geographic area — by estimating that the oil will be allocated according to the percentages for the applicable port set out in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 — as well as an indication of the operating environments and types of oil for which the equipment will be used;
• (j) a list of the types and quantity of equipment required for on-water containment and on-water recovery and storage of recovered materials, as well as the site where that equipment is stored and the operating environments and types of oil for which the equipment will be used;
• (k) a list of the types and quantity of equipment required for bird hazing;
• (l) the capacity of each item of equipment used for on-water recovery and storage, and of each type of equipment used for on-water containment, determined in accordance with the Environmental Response Standards, TP 14909, published by the Department of Transport, as amended from time to time, if applicable;
• (m) a description, by role, of the training required for any person who may be requested to respond to an oil pollution incident, including the frequency of the training;
• (n) a description of its exercise program, referred to in section 26, and the schedule established under subsection 27(1);
• (o) the measures to be taken by the response organization, in accordance with the applicable federal and provincial regulations, to protect the health and safety of any person who may be requested to respond to an oil pollution incident;
• (p) its daily hours of operation in the event of a response to an oil pollution incident and how it will allocate its time within those hours to treat its geographic area, including the number of hours dedicated to on-water recovery operations;
• (q) a description of how it divides its entire geographic area into smaller areas;
• (r) a list of any plans respecting its geographic area that have been considered in developing the response plan; and
• (s) a declaration that the equipment and resources referred to in the response plan are available to the response organization and that the response organization is capable of implementing the procedures included in the response plan.

Contingency plan

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

Content – area response plan

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

• (a) a description of the smaller area, including its operating environments and geographical boundaries;
• (b) the types of vessels in each class described in section 2, any designated ports and the oil handling facilities located in the smaller area and the types of oil transported within that area;
• (c) the site where the equipment and resources necessary to treat the smaller area are located and the time required for the equipment and resources to be deployed or delivered to that area;
• (d) the list of contractors and vessels, referred to in paragraphs 18(1)(d) and (f), respectively, that may be requested to respond within the smaller area; and
• (e) a description of the areas of environmental sensitivities identified by the response organization within the smaller area, including shoreline types, and the measures to be taken for their treatment.

Response Plan Reviews and Updates

Annual review

20 (1) A response organization must annually review and, if necessary, update the response plan referred to in section 18.

Notice

(2) The response organization must notify the Minister in writing as soon as feasible if there is no update to the response plan.

Review and submission – events

(3) The response organization must also review the response plan each time either of the following events occur and, if necessary, update the plan and submit the up-to-date plan to the Minister no later than 45 days after the day on which the event occurred:

• (a) the identification of a deficiency in the response plan after an oil pollution incident or an oil pollution incident simulation exercise; and
• (b) any change to the information referred to in any of paragraphs 18(1)(i), (j) and (p) or any other change to the response organization’s operations that requires an increase in the quantity of equipment or resources.

Submission of updates to Minister

(4) If the response organization updates the response plan under subsection (1), the response organization must submit the up-to-date plan to the Minister no later than one year after the day it submits its most recent annual update or it submits the most recent notice to the Minister under subsection (2), as the case may be.

Records

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

Retention and submission

(2) The response organization must retain the information in the record for a period of three years that begins after the day on which the information is recorded and must submit the record to the Minister with the response plan updated under subsection 20(1) or the notice referred to in subsection 20(2).

Procedures, Equipment and Resources

Procedures – general

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

• (a) provide on-water containment and on-water recovery;
• (b) treat and protect areas of environmental sensitivities;
• (c) treat the different shoreline types;
• (d) ensure a simultaneous response in all affected operating environments;
• (e) store recovered materials;
• (f) haze birds from the location of the oil pollution incident and support wildlife rehabilitation activities of other entities;
• (g) recover submerged oil;
• (h) provide equipment and resources to the persons managing the response operation;
• (i) coordinate response operations with the Canadian Coast Guard and federal, provincial and other bodies responsible for, or involved in, the protection of the environment;
• (j) treat at least 500 m of shoreline in a day;
• (k) mobilize the equipment and resources of the response organization within two hours of a request made by a vessel or oil handling facility under an arrangement referred to in paragraph 167(1)(a) or 168(1)(a) of the Act or by the Canadian Coast Guard; and
• (l) ensure that, in the case of on-water recovery operations for discharged oil in unsheltered waters, the equipment can be safely operated in Beaufort Force 4 conditions.

Procedures – daily capacities

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

• (a) the daily capacity of primary storage and of resources and equipment for containment and recovery necessary to recover on water — from the sheltered waters and unsheltered waters of the applicable port or marine region set out in column 1 of Parts 1 to 3 of Schedule 2 — the corresponding percentage of oil set out in columns 3 and 4 of that schedule within 10 days after the day on which the resources and equipment are deployed to or delivered in the affected operating environment;
• (b) the daily capacity of primary storage and of resources and equipment for containment and recovery necessary to recover on water — from the applicable port or marine region set out in column 1 of Parts 1 to 3 of Schedule 2 — 10% of the corresponding percentage of oil set out in column 2, within 50 days after the day on which the resources and equipment are deployed to or delivered in the affected operating environment; and
• (c) the daily capacity of the secondary storage necessary to recover, from the surface of the waters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), double the capacity of primary storage referred to in each of those paragraphs.

Interpretation

(2) The following definitions apply in this section.

primary storage

means the equipment used to store recovered materials before the recovered materials are transferred to secondary storage. (entreposage primaire)

secondary storage

means the equipment used to store recovered materials before the recovered materials are transported for final disposal. (entreposage secondaire)

Deployment or delivery

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

• (a) the deployment of equipment and resources required to treat 150 tonnes of oil in a designated port to the affected operating environment within 6 hours of a request referred to in paragraph 22(k) having been made;
• (b) the deployment of equipment and resources required to treat 1,000 tonnes of oil in a designated port to the affected operating environment within 12 hours of a request referred to in paragraph 22(k) having been made;
• (c) the delivery of equipment and resources required to treat 2,500 tonnes of oil in a primary area of response located outside of a designated port or in an enhanced response area to the affected operating environment within 18 hours of a request referred to in paragraph 22(k) having been made;
• (d) the delivery of equipment and resources required to treat 10,000 tonnes of oil in a primary area of response located outside of a designated port or in an enhanced response area to the affected operating environment within 72 hours of a request referred to in paragraph 22(k) having been made;
• (e) the delivery of equipment and resources required to treat 2,500 tonnes of oil in any other marine region in the geographic area of the response organization, within the time set out in paragraph (c) plus the additional time necessary to travel, at an average travel speed, to the affected operating environment from the nearest primary area of response or enhanced response area; and
• (f) the delivery of equipment and resources required to treat 10,000 tonnes of oil in any other marine region in the geographic area of the response organization to the affected operating environment within the time set out in paragraph (d) plus the additional time necessary to travel, at an average travel speed, from the nearest primary area of response or enhanced response area.

Estimated number of hours

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

Definition of average travel speed

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

• (a) 6 knots by sea;
• (b) 65 km/h by land; and
• (c) 100 knots by air.

Training and Records

Training

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

• (a) prepares a person who may be requested to respond to an oil pollution incident to undertake their role in the response; and
• (b) will be required, as determined by the response organization, for the following classes of persons according to the role that they may be requested to undertake in the event of an oil pollution incident:
  • (i) the response organization’s permanent personnel,
  • (ii) the response organization’s contractors,
  • (iii) any other persons who may be requested to respond on short notice to an oil pollution incident.

Training record

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

Retention and Ministerial access

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

Exercise Program

Type of exercises

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

• (a) oil pollution incident simulation exercises, other than notification exercises but including equipment deployment exercises that evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures, equipment and resources set out in the response plan referred to in section 18; and
• (b) notification exercises to verify the response organization’s ability to notify, as soon as feasible, the personnel referred to in paragraph 18(1)(c) and the contractors referred to in paragraph 18(1)(d) and verify their availability.

Coordination

(2) The oil pollution incident simulation exercises are coordinated with the Minister and, where possible, with the persons, entities or vessels who would be involved in an oil pollution incident or who may be requested to respond to such an incident.

Number of exercises

(3) A response organization must conduct at least

• (a) eight oil pollution incident simulation exercises for each primary area of response over a three-year period that begins on the day on which its certificate of designation is issued, including at least one exercise simulating a discharge of each of the following quantities of oil with respect to each primary area of response:
  • (i) at least 120 tonnes of oil,
  • (ii) at least 800 tonnes of oil,
  • (iii) at least 2,000 tonnes of oil,
  • (iv) subject to subsection (5), at least 8,000 tonnes of oil; and
• (b) four notification exercises each year per primary area of response.

Enhanced response area

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

More than one primary area of response

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

Exercise program schedule

27 (1) A response organization must establish a schedule by primary area of response that specifies the year when it plans to conduct each oil pollution incident simulation exercise.

Changes to schedule

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

Request of Minister

28 A response organization must conduct an oil pollution incident simulation exercise at the request of the Minister. The exercise counts, for the primary area of response that is nearest to the location in respect of which the exercise is conducted, as an exercise referred to in any of subparagraphs 26(3)(a)(i) to (iv) that is with respect to the same quantity of oil as in the exercise conducted at the Minister’s request.

Ministerial involvement

29 A response organization must, when it begins developing each oil pollution incident simulation exercise, collaborate with the Minister in the development of the exercise and take into account the Minister’s comments.

Amendment or addition of objectives

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

Stakeholder involvement

31 A response organization must, to the extent possible, involve local Indigenous groups and other local stakeholders in conducting each oil pollution incident simulation exercise.

Exercise report

32 A response organization must submit a report to the Minister within 45 days after the day on which it conducts an exercise. The exercise report must include the following information:

• (a) the date the exercise was conducted;
• (b) a description of the simulation;
• (c) a description of the objectives of the exercise, the means used to meet the objectives and an indication of whether the objectives were met; and
• (d) any deficiencies that were identified, a description of the actions that are planned to address those deficiencies and any possible improvements that could be made to the plan or to future exercises.

Other Requirements

Evidence

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

Notice

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

Written confirmation – vessels

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

• (a) able to perform the tasks assigned to it and is compliant with regulations that apply to performing the tasks; and
• (b) able to operate safely in unsheltered waters in Beaufort Force 4 conditions when performing the tasks assigned to it, if it is intended to perform the tasks in unsheltered waters.

Operating hours – vessels

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

Equipment at designated port

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

Cancellation of certification

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

• (a) becomes insolvent;
• (b) commits an act of bankruptcy;
• (c) is dissolved; or
• (d) abandons or transfers its business.

Suspension or cancellation of certification

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

Request to renew certification

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

Fees – notice

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

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

Response Organizations Regulations

11 The Response Organizations Regulations ^{footnote 33} are repealed.

Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations

12 (1) Part 14 of the schedule to the Administrative Monetary Penalties and Notices (CSA 2001) Regulations ^{footnote 34} is amended by adding the following after item 2:

Item	Column 1 Provision of the Environmental Response Regulations	Column 2 Range of Penalties ($)	Column 3 Separate Violation for Each Day
2.1	Subsection 12(1.1)	260 to 10,000

(2) Part 14 of the schedule to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 5:

Item	Column 1 Provision of the Environmental Response Regulations	Column 2 Range of Penalties ($)	Column 3 Separate Violation for Each Day
6	Subsection 20(1)	1,300 to 100,000
7	Subsection 20(2)	260 to 10,000
8	Subsection 20(3)	1,300 to 100,000
9	Subsection 20(4)	260 to 10,000
10	Subsection 21(1)	260 to 10,000
11	Subsection 21(2)	260 to 10,000
12	Section 34	1,300 to 100,000

Coming into Force

13 (1) These Regulations, except sections 1 and 9 to 11 and subsection 12(2), come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Sections 1 and 9 to 11 and subsection 12(2) come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

SCHEDULE

(Section 10)

SCHEDULE 1

(Section 1)

Designated Ports, Primary Areas of Response and Enhanced Response Areas

PART 1

 

Designated Ports

Item	Column 1 Port	Column 2 Description
1	Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador	All the waters of Holyrood Bay south of a line drawn from the high-water mark at the northern extremity of Harbour Main Point (47°26′58″ N, 53°08′26″ W) in a 070°00′ direction (True) to the high-water mark on the opposite shore
2	Come By Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador	All the waters of Placentia Bay north of a line drawn from a point on the high-water mark at approximately 47°41′14″ N, 53°58′12″ W in a 276°00′ direction (True) to Long Island Point Light; thence in a 273°00′ direction (True) to James Point; thence along the foreshore on the high-water mark to Tobins Point all around Bar Haven Bay; thence to Carroll Point, thence in a 320°00′ direction (True) to a point on the high-water mark on the mainland at approximately 47°45′00″ N, 54°14′42″ W
3	Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia	All the waters of the Strait of Canso eastward of the centre line of the channel, from a point at 45°38′41″ N, 61°25′07″ W southward to 45°32′31″ N, 61°17′42″ W, midway between Bear Head and Melford Point
4	Halifax, Nova Scotia	All the waters of Halifax Harbour north of a line drawn between 44°36.5′ N, 63°33.8′ W and 44°37.8′ N, 63°31.6′ W
5	Saint John, New Brunswick	All the waters of Saint John Harbour bound by a line from Cape Spencer Light running south to 45°08.1′ N, then west to Little Musquash Cove (66°17.4′ W)
6	Sept-Îles, Quebec	All the waters bound by a line drawn from the following points: 50°12.8′ N, 66°13.5′ W to 50°08.1′ N, 66°16.1′ W to 50°04.4′ N, 66°23.1′ W to 50°08.5′ N, 66°36.6′ W
7	Québec, Quebec	All the waters between the eastern boundary consisting of a line drawn from 46°53′09″ N, 71°08′36″ W through Île d’Orléans to a point at 46°49′42″ N, 71°07′50″ W, and the western boundary of a line drawn from 46°44′51″ N, 71°20′36″ W to a point at 46°33′39″ N, 71°20′08″ W
8	Montréal, Quebec	All the waters between the eastern boundary consisting of a line drawn from a point on the shore at approximately 46°01′ N, 73°11.1′ W to a point at approximately 46°00.8′ N, 73°09.85′ W on the opposite shore, and the western boundary of a line drawn from 45°24′2.67″ N, 73°31′41.50″ W to a point at 45°41′37.17″ N, 73°35′19.71″ W
9	Sarnia, Ontario	All the Canadian waters of the St. Clair River with the northern boundary line coinciding with the south face of the Blue Water Bridge connecting Point Edward, Ontario with Port Huron, Michigan, United States and the southern boundary line drawn so as to include all of its several outlets into Lake St. Clair, including any dredged channels
10	Vancouver, British Columbia	All the Canadian waters of Boundary Bay; the waters bounded by a line drawn due west along the Canada-United States border to a point at 123°19.3′ W, then north to a point at 49°14′ N, 123°19.3′ W, then to a point at 49°15.5′ N, 123°17′ W; and the waters of Burrard Inlet east of a line drawn from Point Atkinson Light to Point Grey

PART 2

Primary Areas of Response

Item	Column 1 Marine Region	Column 2 Description
1	Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador	All the waters between an easterly arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 47°26′58″ N, 53°08′26″ W and the contiguous land mass
2	Come By Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador	All the waters of Placentia Bay north of a line drawn from Tides Cove Point Light to Cape St. Mary’s Light; all the waters of Fortune Bay north of a line drawn from St. Jacques Island Light to Garnish Light; and all the waters of St. Mary’s Bay north of a line drawn from La Haye Point Light to Branch West Breakwater Light
3	Point Tupper, Nova Scotia	All the waters between an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about Bear Head Light (45°33′ N, 61°17′ W) but not extending north of the Canso Causeway into St. Georges Bay and the contiguous land mass
4	Halifax, Nova Scotia	All the waters of the south coast of Nova Scotia within an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 44°37.2′ N, 63°32.75′ W
5	Saint John, New Brunswick	All the Canadian waters between the western boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 45°08′03″ N, 66°17′12″ W and the eastern boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about a point centred on Cape Spencer Light
6	Sept-Îles, Quebec	All the waters bounded by a line drawn from the point on shore 49°24.8′ N, 67°17.5′ W to the point 49°14′ N, 66°23.1′ W, to the point 49°22′ N, 65°40′ W, to the point 49°40′ N, 65°12′ W to the point 50°16.3′ N, 64°55.7′ W on the shore and by the contiguous land mass
7	Québec, Quebec	All the waters between the upstream boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 46°44.8′ N, 71°20.56′ W, and the downstream boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 46°53.12′ N, 71°08.1′ W
8	Montréal, Quebec	All the waters between the upstream boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 45°28.5′ N, 73°32.62′ W and the downstream boundary consisting of an arc having a 50 nautical mile radius about the point 46°00.98′ N, 73°11.08′ W
9	Sarnia, Ontario	All the Canadian waters between a line in Lake Huron, drawn from the point 43°48.7′ N, 82°10.3′ W on the Canada-United States border to the point 43°39.4′ N, 81°43.25′ W on the shore and a line in Lake Erie drawn from the point 41°53.8′ N, 81°55.7′ W on the Canada-United States border to the point 42°34.4′ N, 81°31′ W on the shore
10	Vancouver, British Columbia	All the Canadian waters between the northwestern boundary consisting of a line drawn from the point 49°46.5′ N, 124°20.5′ W on the mainland, through Texada Island, to the point 49°22.5′ N, 124°32.4′ W on the shore of Vancouver Island and the southern boundary consisting of a line running along the 48°25′ N parallel from Victoria, eastward, to the Canada-United States border, including the waters of Jervis Inlet up to a line drawn from the point 49°59′58.91″ N, 123°59′58.11″ W to the point 49°59′56.41″ N, 123°56′46.67″ W

PART 3

Enhanced Response Areas

Item	Column 1 Marine Region	Column 2 Description
1	Cabot Strait	All the waters within a circle having a 50 nautical mile radius, about a point midway between Cape North, Nova Scotia, and Cape Ray, Newfoundland and Labrador
2	Northumberland Strait	All the waters between the western boundary consisting of a line drawn from West Point, Prince Edward Island, to Bouctouche, New Brunswick, and the eastern boundary consisting of a line running from Cape Bear, Prince Edward Island, to Trenton, Nova Scotia
3	Niagara	All the Canadian waters, in Lake Erie, east of a line drawn from Long Point Light (42°32.8′ N, 80°02.6′ W), then southeasterly 150°00′ (True) to intersect the Canada-United States border at 42°26.4′ N, 79°58.0′ W, then easterly along the Canada-United States border to include the Niagara River; and all the Canadian waters, in Lake Ontario, west of a line drawn from Fort Mississauga National Historic Site of Canada at the mouth of the Niagara River (43º15.7′ N, 79°04.6′ W) to follow the Canada-United States border to a position where the border changes from a northerly direction to an easterly direction (43°26.1′ N, 79°12.1′ W), then due north to the Canadian shoreline at 43°44.2′ N, 79°12.1′ W
4	Juan de Fuca Strait	All the Canadian waters between the western boundary consisting of a line drawn from Carmanah Point on Vancouver Island to Cape Flattery, Washington, United States, and the eastern boundary consisting of a line running along the 48°25′ N parallel from Victoria, eastward, to the Canada-United States border

SCHEDULE 2

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

Estimate — Allocation of Oil during an Oil Pollution Incident

PART 1

Designated Ports

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

PART 2

Primary Areas of Response

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

PART 3

Enhanced Response Areas

Item	Column 1 Marine Region	Column 2 Shoreline (% of oil)	Column 3 Sheltered Waters (% of oil)	Column 4 Unsheltered Waters (% of oil)
1	Cabot Strait	40	30	30
2	Northumberland Strait	40	0	60
3	Niagara	50	30	20
4	Juan de Fuca Strait	40	20	40

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Privacy notice

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

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

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

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

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

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