What we heard: Potential regulations to increase access to marine emergency services and improve response to pollution incidents

Transport Canada is developing regulations to improve preparedness and response for marine incidents. We published a discussion paper in October 2024 outlining the initial intentions and scope for the proposed regulations. This report summarizes the comments and feedback that we received.

On this page

Purpose

This report summarizes the questions and feedback we received about potential regulations to increase access to marine emergency services and improve response to pollution incidents. This feedback came through written comments and discussions with Indigenous peoples and stakeholder organizations. Stakeholder organizations include:

  • industry stakeholders (for example, vessel and port owners and operators and industry associations)
  • community associations
  • labour organizations
  • response service representatives
  • research organizations
  • other levels of government.

We posted a discussion paper on the topic on October 2, 2024. It was open for feedback until January 31, 2025.

Background

Canadians rely on oceans and waterways for food, recreation, transportation, and shipping many products. The Government of Canada has worked to build a strong marine safety system that protects marine environments and coastal communities while also supporting safe and clean shipping. Marine shipping is vital for supply chains and Canada’s economy.

Amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 completed in 2023 improved how Canada prepares for and responds to marine emergencies and pollution incidents. As a next step, we would develop potential regulations in two areas:

  1. 1) enhancing marine safety incident response:
    1. a) requiring certain commercial vessels to have arrangements in place to access marine emergency services if there is an incident (for example, marine firefighting and assistance to disabled vessels like emergency towing and salvage)
  2. 2) preparing for and responding to marine pollution incidents:
    1. a) improving how vessels and handling facilities prepare for and respond to marine incidents involving hazardous and noxious substances
    2. b) introducing a vessel response coordinator role to help coordinate vessel response activities for all types of pollution incidents

We asked the following questions to help determine the scope and key features of the future regulations:

  • Which vessel types should have emergency services arrangements?
  • What requirements should be included in the arrangements?
  • Which vessels and handling facilities should have hazardous and noxious substances response plans?
  • What requirements should be included in the response plans?
  • What responsibilities and capabilities should the response coordinator have?

Our engagement approach

We engaged with Indigenous peoples and stakeholder organizations from October 2024 to mid-February 2025. After posting the discussion paper, we notified over 2,000 contacts including Indigenous peoples and stakeholder organizations to share information and seek views. Before posting the discussion paper, we also held some information sessions with Indigenous representatives and industry stakeholders. These sessions raised awareness of the proposed regulations and our intention to publish a discussion paper.

We held 35 engagement sessions with 86 organizations during the engagement period. This included 15 meetings with 53 Indigenous organizations and 20 meetings with 33 stakeholder organizations. The stakeholder meetings included:

  • 11 meetings with 19 industry stakeholders
  • 3 meetings with 8 response service representatives
  • 4 meetings with 4 community associations
  • 1 meeting with a research organization.

Many of these were individual meetings scheduled upon request in response to outreach emails. We also discussed the topic during Regulatory RoundtableFootnote 1 meetings.

Below is a regional breakdown of organizations at the meetings:

  • 15 meetings/presentations with 53 Indigenous organizations from the following regions:
    • Pacific: 14
    • Northern: 11
    • Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River: 15
    • Atlantic: 11
    • National Indigenous Organizations: 2
  • 20 meetings/presentations with 33 stakeholder organizations from the following regions:
    • Pacific: 6
    • Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River: 2
    • Atlantic: 14
    • National: 11

We also presented at some large-scale events such as Dialogue Forums (Ontario Dialogue Forum and a Pacific Dialogue Forum Virtual Initiative Spotlight) and a National Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC) meeting.

We received 35 written comment submissions responding to the discussion paper:

  • 18 from industry stakeholders
  • 7 from Indigenous organizations
  • 3 from response service representatives
  • 2 from labour organizations
  • 2 from provincial government entities
  • 3 from members of the public

What we heard

Overall, engagement participants supported proposed regulations to require:

  • certain vessels to have arrangements in place for marine emergency services
  • vessels and handling facilities carrying or transferring hazardous and noxious substances to have response plans
  • vessels with pollution response plans to include a Response Coordinator role as part of the plans

Participants asked questions for clarification and made recommendations for what could be included in the regulations. Key questions and feedback from both meetings and written submissions are summarized below, starting with general themes, then specific feedback for each proposed element.

General comments and feedback

Many Indigenous and stakeholder participants across all regions asked about existing capacity for marine emergency services and spill response for hazardous and noxious substances in both populated and remote areas. They highlighted the importance of understanding existing capacity and the possible challenges and costs for expanding services. Feedback on oversight and enforcement was also common among a variety of participants. They stressed the importance of strong oversight and enforcement to make sure that new rules would be followed.

Many Indigenous participants stressed their desire to have more formal roles in preparedness and response for marine incidents. They suggested this could include building local capacity to respond to marine safety and pollution incidents, participating in exercises, and opportunities to give input on pollution response plans. Indigenous participants also highlighted the importance of regional considerations such as environmental and cultural sensitivities, different levels and types of marine traffic, and supporting faster response times (including for Northern and remote communities). Indigenous participants showed strong interest in continued dialogue and opportunities for input as the regulations are developed.

Several industry stakeholders and response service representatives stressed the importance of making sure that proposed regulations broadly align with international codes, protocols, and standards. Most vessels carrying cargo are international vessel that travel between many countries. Industry stakeholders noted that aligning rules and practices would be crucial for consistency and inter-operability. They emphasized that this could help vessel operators avoid complications or experiencing different standards as they move between jurisdictions. Some marine industry representatives further emphasized that it would be important to specifically align with regulations in the United States as many vessels operate in both Canada and the United States.

Vessel emergency services arrangements

We would propose requiring certain commercial vessels to have arrangements for emergency services. This could include marine firefighting and disabled vessel assistance including salvage and emergency towing. This can help vessels have faster and more consistent access to marine emergency services. Proactively ensuring that emergency services are available and able to be activated sooner will help protect people on-board, the marine environment, and the stability of supply chains. We asked which vessels should have emergency service arrangements and what requirements the arrangements should include.

Most Indigenous and stakeholder participants supported requiring vessel emergency service arrangements. Some suggested that specific services such as emergency towing, cargo lightering, and wreck removal should be included. These are good examples of operations that might be part of salvage operations to assist a disabled vessel. Some participants also suggested centralized coordination of these services through a single entity to help coordinate and deploy resources.

Participants had different views on which vessels should require emergency services arrangements. Some industry stakeholders, response service representatives, Indigenous participants, and community associations in multiple regions recommended that all vessels, regardless of their size or type, should require these arrangements. Some Indigenous participants stated that this requirement should at least apply to all vessels transiting waters within Indigenous territories.

Many industry stakeholders recommended that these requirements should only apply to commercial vessels of certain sizes or those carrying high-risk products. They suggested aligning vessel sizes with international standards and conventions such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea or the size thresholds that are used for ship-source oil spill preparedness regulations. For example, vessels required to have oil spill response plans include oil tankers of 150 gross tonnes or more and any vessels of 400 gross tonnes or more carrying oil as cargo or fuel.

We also received a wide range of recommendations from a variety of participants in all regions about what should be included in vessel emergency service arrangements. Recommendations included having clear responsibilities for the vessel and service provider, having funding arrangements between vessel and service provider before the incident response (such as a clear fee structure), and having a clear communication plan between the vessel and service provider.

Some feedback suggested considering different regional risks and concerns, such as different standards for vessels operating in sensitive waters, near Indigenous territories, in remote or Arctic waters, and in narrow or challenging waterways. Industry stakeholders and response service representatives also stressed the need to consider challenges like logistics and timeframes when responding to incidents away from ports or in remote locations.

Some Indigenous participants and industry stakeholders recommended requirements for emergency service providers such as qualification standards or certifications, response time standards based on risk, and having pre-identified strategies for certain scenarios. It is important to note that, as stated in the discussion paper, we do not propose regulating specific professional qualifications for marine emergency responders such as marine firefighters.

Some industry stakeholders and response service representatives said that regulations should create a stronger role for port authorities in emergency response to vessel incidents. They also recommended requiring emergency response training and exercises for service providers and providing funding to support firefighting and other emergency response services. Some industry and other stakeholders asked how the proposed regulations might align with or complement existing parts of the marine safety regime such as search and rescue operations, various regulations, and emergency response plans. As noted in the guiding principles provided in the discussion paper, we will work to compliment and build from existing regulations, programs, and practices.

Many Indigenous participants and stakeholder organizations highlighted that marine emergency services may be limited. They noted that specialized marine services are often unavailable and land-based emergency services such as local fire departments often do not have capacity to address marine incidents. They highlighted the importance of understanding existing capacity and gaps in emergency services across Canada. They also noted the need to understand challenges for expanding emergency services and the costs of complying with proposed requirements.

Preparing for and responding to hazardous and noxious substances incidents

We are proposing requiring vessels and handling facilities that transport or transfer hazardous and noxious substances to have response plans for responding to releases of these substances. This is similar to what is done for oil spill preparedness. This can help make sure that vessels and handling facilities can act quickly to contain, clean-up, and reduce risks and potential damage from a hazardous and noxious substance release. The discussion paper asked which vessels and handling facilities should require these plans and what the plans should include.

Overall, participants supported this approach. However, many Indigenous participants and stakeholder organizations asked about the definition of hazardous and noxious substances and wanted to know which products would be included. Some stakeholder organizations suggested using existing standards such as Transport Canada’s dangerous goods classification and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to identify products.

Many Indigenous participants and stakeholder organizations across all regions asked how hazardous and noxious substance response plans would align with the existing oil spill preparedness and response regime. Specifically, they stressed that responding to incidents involving hazardous and noxious substances can be more complex compared to oil spills. They noted that the fate, behaviour and type of products often determines the response strategies and techniques.

Some industry stakeholders and response service representatives involved in oil spill response advised us to make sure regulations for responding to hazardous and noxious substances remain separate from the existing regulations for oil spill response. They suggested this would help clearly define which activities are oil spill response or hazardous and noxious substance response, and allow organizations that respond to different types of spills to have clear responsibilities.

Some stakeholder organizations recommended that hazardous and noxious substances response plan requirements should be similar to what is currently required for oil spill preparedness. They suggested that requirements could be based on volume thresholds and unique risks of different substances. Some Indigenous participants recommended that these plans should include response time requirements based on regional and geographic considerations, and that Indigenous communities should have an opportunity to provide input for plans.

Many Indigenous participants and stakeholder organizations asked about the potential role of Transport Canada- certified response organizations for responding to hazardous and noxious substances incidents. A variety of participants expressed concern about the existing capacity to respond to incidents involving hazardous and noxious substances. Some recommended expanding the services of existing response organizations to respond to more substances or creating new organizations focused on hazardous and noxious substances to address this gap. However, some industry stakeholders and response service representatives also said that response to hazardous and noxious substance incidents should be separate from existing oil spill response to maintain clear roles and responsibilities. As noted in the discussion paper, Transport Canada does not intend to certify response organizations for hazardous and noxious substances like we do for oil spill response. This is because of the wide range of substances involved and different expertise needed.

Many stakeholder organizations and Indigenous participants in all regions were interested in more information about cargo being carried by vessels. Many participants pointed out that cargo information is crucial for understanding risks and supporting local preparedness. Some participants recommended considering cargo reporting requirements for vessels.

Transport Canada is continuing work to better understand the movement of hazardous and noxious substances among waterways. Different departments are also working together to expand scientific knowledge about hazardous and noxious substances.

Response coordinator

We propose creating a response coordinator role. This would be a dedicated on-shore representative of the vessel responsible for implementing their spill response plans and coordinating with local responders and impacted communities. This could help response plan activation by ensuring that a single, specialized coordinator is available to implement plans. We asked what responsibilities and capabilities the response coordinator should have.

Many Indigenous participants, stakeholder organizations, and response service representatives across all regions supported a response coordinator role. They agreed that managing marine emergencies is complex and improving coordination during incidents is important. Many comments from a variety of participants recommended allowing the response coordinator to be a single point of contact between the vessel and other emergency responders. They also suggested the response coordinator should have the authority to act on behalf of the vessel and the ability to transfer funds.

Some Indigenous participants and stakeholder organizations wanted clarification about the roles and responsibilities of the response coordinator. Stakeholder organizations asked how this role would be different from other roles such as the authorized representative, designated persons ashore, or ship manager, and whether they would need to create a new role in their operations. They were concerned that a new position could disrupt existing vessel practices by adding new burdens or having similar or overlapping responsibilities among different positions.

Many Indigenous participants were interested in how the response coordinator would interact with local Indigenous communities. They recommended requiring training for the response coordinator to become familiar with different territories and coastal communities. They further stressed the importance of including requirements and methods for clear communication and coordination with Indigenous communities during response. Indigenous participants also had a strong desire for the response coordinator to incorporate Indigenous knowledge to make sure that response activity respects Indigenous perspectives and rights.

Some Indigenous participants and stakeholder organizations in multiple regions shared concerns about the qualifications of the response coordinator. They suggested requirements to make sure response coordinators have adequate training and qualifications.

Stakeholder organizations also recommended requiring the response coordinator to be physically located in Canada. They noted that vessels frequently travel to multiple countries. Having a designated representative familiar with Canadian regulations, standards, and geography would help improve response coordination.

Other feedback

We also received some comments and feedback in areas that were outside of the scope of these proposed regulations. Some Indigenous participants and industry and other stakeholder participants recommended national coordination for marine emergency services. For example, this could involve creating a national agency or an organization that would coordinate all marine emergency services. Some Indigenous and stakeholder participants suggested directly providing training and capacity for fire departments and other local responders to respond to shipboard incidents. Some participants also raised related topics such as protecting marine life.

Next steps

We are closely considering all the comments we have received. We are committed to continuing dialogue and working closely with Indigenous peoples, stakeholder organizations, and other interested parties throughout the regulatory development process.

We plan to develop and share a second discussion paper with more detailed information on the proposed regulations, based on feedback and ongoing analysis. We will engage further once the second discussion paper is available to help further develop these proposed regulations.

Date modified: