Canadian Navigable Waters Act Fees Regulations: SOR/2024-148

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 158, Number 14

Registration
SOR/2024-148 June 21, 2024

CANADIAN NAVIGABLE WATERS ACT

P.C. 2024-800 June 21, 2024

Her Excellency the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, makes the annexed Canadian Navigable Waters Act Fees Regulations under subsection 28(1)^{footnote a} of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act ^{footnote b}.

Canadian Navigable Waters Act Fees Regulations

Application for Approval

Fees

1 An owner who submits an application for an approval under subsection 5(1) or paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to construct, place, alter or rebuild a work must pay to the Minister the fee set out in the table to this section that corresponds to the period set out in column 1 during which the application is submitted and to the category of the work specified, as the case may be, in column 2, in column 3 or in column 4.

TABLE

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

More than one work

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

Application for Exemption

Fee and payment

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

Consequential Amendment

4 Subsections 13(2) and (3) of the Navigable Waters Works Regulations ^{footnote 1} are repealed.

Coming into Force

Publication

5 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

SCHEDULE

(Section 1)

List of Work Types

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

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

TC’s NPP services are currently provided to users at no charge, so all service delivery costs are borne by Canadian taxpayers. TC resources are strained to maintain existing service levels. Fees will help to shift some of the cost on to the beneficiaries of NPP services, thereby reducing the subsidization burden on taxpayers and the impact on TC resources.

Background

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

Applications for approval of works

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

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

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

Applications for exemption of navigable waters from prohibited activities

The CNWA prohibits the following activities:

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

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

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

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

Minor works in any navigable water

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

Fee modernization at Transport Canada

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

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

Objective

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

Description

The Regulations introduce fees for

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

Fees to review an application for approval of a work

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

Three fee categories have been established for review of applications for approval of works:

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

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

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

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

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

Fees for applications for an exemption

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

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

It is important to note that the fee is not for the granting of the approval itself and will not be refunded if an exemption request is denied by the GIC. An application for an exemption from prohibited activities will carry a fee of $66,000 imposed that will typically allow the NPP to recover 100% of its cost to review and process an application for exemption. This fee reflects the high proportion of privatized benefit of the service to the proponent.^{footnote 2}

Table 1:^{footnote 1} Navigation Protection Program — Cost recovery fees
Table 1 represents each full fee amount starting at the end of the third year after the coming into force of the Regulations.

Fee category	Fee category description	Examples of work types	Fee payable per application for approval reviewed table a3 note a	Estimated cost to TC to provide service	Cost recovery rate
Category 1	Low complexity works that do not meet the criteria to be considered a Minor Work, and are often associated with, but not limited to:		$500	$3,510	14%
	Homeowner/cottager applications	Raft, boathouse, recreational slipway/ boat-launching ramp
	Multi-work projects with a number of identical small works in close proximity	Helicopter logging, scientific equipment
Category 2	Other low complexity works	Dredging, aerial cable, aquaculture facility — other than finfish, and commercial dock (jetty, pier, wharf)	$1,400	$3,510	40%
Category 3	High complexity works	Aquaculture facility — finfish, bridge and terminal	$4,300	$7,220	60%
Exemption	Exemption from prohibited activities	Dewatering a navigable waterway, throwing and depositing of certain materials	$66,000	$66,000	100%
Table a3 note(s) Table a3 note a A project involving multiple works will be billed for each work for which an approval is sought, and a review is required, even if a single application is submitted for the project. Under certain circumstances an application for an exemption could include more than one waterway. In these instances, the fee will be applied only once for the review of the application, rather than for each individual waterway. Return to table a3 note a referrer

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

Phasing in of fees

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

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

The fee for application for an exemption will not be phased in. The full fee amount will be payable upon the coming into force of the Regulations, and the CPI adjustment will occur on April 1, 2025, and every April 1 thereafter.

Table 2: Phase-in schedule for fees

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

Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aquaculture sector

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

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

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

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

TC response

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

• Aquaculture Facility — Other than Finfish — $1,400
• Aquaculture Facility — Finfish — $4,300

TC determined that this change was appropriate because

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

Mining and energy

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

TC response

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

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

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

It should also be noted that, at the time that the fee proposal was put forth, the NPP data management system, NavInfo, did not include a provision to track NPP officers’ time spent on completing the steps in the NPP process for review of applications for works and exemptions. However, as part of the implementation of the fee regime, a time tracking provision has been developed, which, going forward, will enable TC to better track and analyze the time required by NPP officers to complete the application review process.

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

Governments

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

TC response

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

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

Indigenous Nations/communities and organizations

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

TC response

TC recognizes that the fees will likely have mixed impacts on Indigenous communities. Imposing fees ensures that those who create interferences to Canadians’ and Indigenous people’s right to navigate are responsible for costs associated with an application review for the interference. TC is not exempting projects from fees because all projects benefit from the NPP’s application review services.

COVID-19 pandemic

Stakeholders and Indigenous partners, particularly in the aquaculture sector, raised concerns about both the timing of the consultation and eventual fee implementation given the current economic climate and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and indicated that imposing new fees at this time could be damaging to business and competitiveness.

TC response

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

The fees for the review of an application for works will be phased in over approximately three years (2024–2027), for all applicants as follows:

• Upon coming into force of the Regulations — 55% of the full fee;
• Beginning April 1, 2025 — 70% of the full fee;
• Beginning April 1, 2026 — 85% of the full fee; and
• Beginning April 1, 2027 — 100% of the full fee.

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

Additional consultation feedback

Application of fees by request type

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

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

TC response

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

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

Fee exemptions

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

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

TC response

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

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

Administrative changes to fee proposal

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

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

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

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The Regulations were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on October 28, 2023. An initial 30-day public comment period was extended to 60 days to facilitate greater engagement and closed on December 27, 2023. Further extensions were made available upon request for Indigenous communities that wished to provide their comments on the proposal. Thirty-six written submissions were received from 20 stakeholders and Indigenous partners, including, industry (aquaculture and energy), government (federal and municipal) representatives, members of the public and an Indigenous community. TC also held a virtual engagement session where it received comments on the proposal from an additional Indigenous community.

Comments received fell into two primary themes:

• Service standards, transparency and service delivery; and
• Fee exemptions and general fee reductions.

The following sections provide a summary of the issues raised by stakeholders and Indigenous partners as part of the Canada Gazette, Part I, public comment period and the actions taken by TC to address those issues.

Service standards, transparency and service delivery

NPP service standards, timelines for the review of applications, greater overall transparency, and general improvements to the quality of service delivery were raised by stakeholders. Some comments received were out of scope for this consultation but have been summarized below.

Stakeholders consistently voiced concerns about the lack of predictability in timelines for the NPP to review applications and underscored the need for well-defined service standards and faster turnaround times for the review of applications. Some stakeholders also recommended directing the additional funds received from fees towards reducing timelines for issuing approvals and improving the overall quality of services provided by the NPP.

The desire for greater transparency emerged as another central theme, with questions arising about how the additional funds received from fees would be used to alleviate the financial burden on taxpayers and whether the money would be redirected to other areas of government. Some stakeholders also requested that TC be more transparent in explaining how it determined which fee category a work should fall under. Stakeholders recommended that TC adopt additional criteria for determining what fee category a work should fall under in order to allow for greater transparency and a more unbiased and systematic approach to determining fees. Concerns were also raised about the escalating prevalence of fees across different levels of government, which is perceived as burdensome for industry, governments, and private citizens.

Although out of scope for this consultation, comments were provided on existing requirements and processes, including the need for a more streamlined approval process, greater harmonization across different levels of government and a need to devise plans to alleviate administrative burdens. For example, some stakeholders suggested that NPP should work more closely with other government departments so that proponents would not be required to seek separate approvals from municipal, provincial, and federal governments. Some stakeholders raised concerns regarding the lack of harmonization and flexibility within and across provincial and federal regulatory bodies and noted the administrative burden of completing NPP applications for approval of works. The desire for more flexibility and adaptability within the NPP’s approval process was also highlighted, particularly as it relates to impacts on owners of works who may require frequent modifications to facilitate effective operations. For example, some stakeholders in the aquaculture sector felt that they should not be required to seek an approval every time they need to move or adjust their aquaculture gear (nets, fences, etc.).

TC response

As committed to in the original fee proposal, in the interest of predictability, TC will make available a tracking tool to enable proponents to track the status of their application and will post the internal timelines in relation to its review of works and exemption applications. The service standards — for both an application review for a work and an application review for an exemption — provide that within five business days of acknowledgement to the proponent of receipt of a complete application, TC will make available a tracking tool within the NPP external submission website to enable the proponent to track the status of their application. Moving forward, TC will continue to work towards developing more comprehensive service standards and plans to work collaboratively with other federal government partners in their development.

In terms of how funds from fees will be used to alleviate the financial burden on taxpayers, due to the absence of fees for NPP services, a notable cost imbalance prevails, and program services are entirely funded by taxpayers. The implementation of fees aims to allocate a share of the cost for NPP services onto the beneficiaries, reducing the subsidization burden on taxpayers.

Categorization of the works was determined based on construction methods, industry practices, size of the work, likely impacts to the navigable water, and the anticipated level of effort needed to review the application. The ability of the project proponent to absorb fees was also considered, hence differentiated (lower) pricing has been established for works often undertaken by individuals, homeowners, and cottagers, such as rafts, as well as certain types of aquaculture facilities, which are often owned by individuals or very small businesses. TC believes that the criteria it has used to determine how a work should be categorized is fair and reasonable.

Although comments related to existing NPP requirements and processes were out of scope for this consultation, TC will continue to work collaboratively across government to streamline regulatory processes where possible and work to create greater harmonization and consistency across departments in an effort to reduce the administrative burden on proponents and to create greater efficiencies across government.

Fee exemptions and general fee reductions

Many stakeholders and an Indigenous community advocated for amendments to the Regulations as originally proposed that would introduce exemptions from fees for certain classes of users, or reduced fee levels for the approval of specific work types. Their arguments varied, but largely emphasized the need for exemptions from fees or reduced fee levels to alleviate the financial burden on small owner-operated businesses, particularly those engaged in the aquaculture sector, and different levels of government, including rural municipalities, and Indigenous communities.

Members of the aquaculture sector cited general economic challenges and the negative impacts of weather-related events, such as Hurricane Fiona, on the aquaculture sector, as reasons to consider reducing fees for the sector or delaying the introduction of fees. Within the aquaculture sector, some stakeholders also stressed the dynamic and changing nature of shellfish farming and suggested that further consideration should be given for shellfish farmers. Some stakeholders proposed moving shellfish facilities from Category 2 to Category 1 and recommended freezing fee rates for a 5-year period to help proponents acclimate to the fees. They also called for differentiation between intertidal and deep-water shellfish aquaculture facilities, that would account for the varied complexity and risk to navigation associated with these facilities.

Concerns were also raised by certain rural municipalities regarding the potential negative impact of the proposed fees on the ability of small municipalities to carry out the development of new infrastructure projects. Rural municipalities and some federal government departments also raised questions about TC’s rationale for charging fees to other government entities and the public-private benefit. Additionally, some federal departments, provinces, and municipalities recommended that governments or other federal government applicants should be excluded from fees due to the public nature of their projects.

One stakeholder raised a concern that the new fees would apply in cases where a proponent wishes to alter, replace, or rebuild an existing work, which was historically deemed lawful (under previous legislation) and, therefore, was not required to seek an approval from the NPP in the first place. Other stakeholders commented that projects comprised of multiple works should not be billed for each individual work requiring approval but should instead be charged one broad fee that covers the individual works.

Comments were also received from some Indigenous communities explaining that, although they supported phasing in fees over approximately three years for applications for works, they believed that the proposed fee for applications for exemption ($66,000) was unjust. Some Indigenous communities raised concerns about the ability of Indigenous communities to pay the fees and indicated that such a fee may impact Indigenous peoples’ ability to enjoy their constitutionally protected rights. These commentors suggested that Indigenous communities and peoples should therefore be exempted from the fee.

TC response

TC recognizes that fees may have a negative impact to project costs for small owner-operated businesses, such as those in the aquaculture sector, and governments, including rural municipalities, and Indigenous peoples and communities. In addition, TC acknowledges that, in rare situations, fees could impact municipal works and create added challenges for small businesses. However, fees will ensure that those who create interferences to Canadians’ and Indigenous peoples’ right to navigation are responsible for costs associated with an application review for the interference.

To mitigate the monetary impacts of fees in the short term, the Regulations will gradually phase in the fees over approximately three years. Fee levels were also adjusted in the initial proposal to address concerns raised by the aquaculture industry, particularly to limit the impact to small businesses in this sector. Aquaculture facilities were divided into two distinct types of works, Aquaculture Facility — Finfish, and Aquaculture Facility — Other than Finfish. This resulted in shellfish and other aquaculture facilities, including marine plants, sea urchins, and cockles, being moved from Category 3 to Category 2, to account for the fact that most aquaculture facilities, other than finfish, are run by single individuals or families, with a lower ability to absorb fees.

TC has determined that no further reductions in rates should be adopted and that no groups of stakeholders, Indigenous Peoples and communities, or project types, should be exempted from paying fees. TC is not exempting projects from fees because all projects benefit from the NPP’s application review services. The CNWA was designed to protect the public’s right to navigate on Canada’s navigable waters. Applications for works and exemptions exist to ensure that these protections are upheld and administered in a predictable and consistent manner, benefiting Indigenous peoples along with all individuals who use these waters for navigation. In response to comments received from Indigenous peoples regarding the fee for applications for exemptions from prohibited activities, TC finds the fee appropriate, as it reflects the high proportion of privatized benefit to proponents. TC conducted a detailed analysis on the public vs. private benefits associated with the NPP’s review of applications for exemptions from prohibitions, which was published in the NPP fee proposal in 2020. Notably, these exemptions from prohibited activities are mainly for major resource development projects, with the majority of applications coming from the mining sector. Additionally, such applications are not common. There have been only five applications for exemptions from prohibited activities since 2005. Historically, Indigenous communities have not led any applications for exemptions from such prohibited activities, although any proponent may initiate an application for an exemption with TC when it is required. Although the volume of future applications is not known, it is estimated that only a few applications for exemptions (approximately 3 on average) will be reviewed each year. Indigenous applicants for an approval of a work accounted for only 4% of requests submitted to TC and most of these applications were tied to modern activities, such as aquaculture facilities, helicopter logging areas or scientific equipment. Additionally, the CNWA provides mechanisms for proponents to proceed on many of Canada’s navigable waters without requiring an application for approval and therefore no fees would apply under these mechanisms. This includes mechanisms such as the Minor Works Order, which includes docks, boat-launching ramps and other works that generally have minimal interference with navigation to proceed without requiring an application for approval. It is therefore anticipated that a significant portion of works proposed by Indigenous peoples of Canada to exercise their rights will continue to be permitted under mechanisms where there are no fees applicable.

Based on these mechanisms provided under the CNWA, TC concluded that no further exemptions and rate reductions were to be added.

TC acknowledges concerns regarding billing for multiple works within an approval. Under subsection 5(2) of the CNWA, one or more works may be deemed related and addressed as a single work, resulting in a single fee for the single work type identified in the approval.​ It is appropriate for works to be deemed related if they are in the same area​, serve a common purpose​, and are owned by the same owner or under common management.

Changes to the Regulations

Stakeholder comments received since 2020 have been recorded and were considered in the development of the Regulations. In response to comments received during the prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, and to address an administrative error, minor changes have been made.

First, the coming into force provisions of the Regulations have been amended from upon registration to upon publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to increase predictability on the timing of the introduction of fees and assist TC with ensuring that stakeholders and Indigenous partners are provided with advance notice.

Second, in the Schedule of the Regulations, the definition for a “jetty” has been amended to clarify that a jetty is a structure or path generally made up of rubble and concrete at which vessels can dock or be moored. Previously, the definition did not indicate that the structure or pathway was one where vessels can dock or be moored. The definition was updated to add this clarification.

Third, other minor administrative changes have been made to the Regulations as originally proposed to ensure clarity, precision, and consistency throughout the Regulations. These changes are not substantive in nature and do not change the intent or impact of the Regulations in any way. For example, the term “body of water” has been replaced by “navigable water” to better align with the intent of the CNWA. Another example is the consistent use, in the English version of the Regulations, of the term “structure” in place of “construction” for further clarification of some work types described in the Schedule.

TC has determined that no further changes should be adopted. Further changes to the Regulations and additional delays in implementation would not be consistent with TC’s objective of ensuring that those who use program services pay a reasonable share of the costs for those services.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

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

Indigenous peoples, communities, and organizations were engaged during the initial development of the proposal in 2020–2021 and during the prepublication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I, in 2023. Indigenous communities, organizations, and governments were also invited to apply for funding under the Indigenous Participation Funding Program to support their review and provide comments on the proposed Regulations and fees. The funding program is designed to encourage effective Indigenous participation in the review process as well as increase the capacity of Indigenous communities and organizations to participate in such consultations.

Instrument choice

Historically, there has been no fee regime associated to NPP service delivery. This has placed pressure on TC resources to maintain a consistent level of service and has required Canadian taxpayers to subsidize CNWA application processing services.

Non-regulatory options

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

Regulatory option

Instruments other than regulations, such as standards and policies or SLAs would have been ineffective as they would not have resulted in legally binding fees and would have created greater administrative burden on TC’s clients. Charging fees via regulations is the most transparent, predictable, and consistent way to ensure that the financial burden of the service delivery costs is balanced more appropriately between service recipients and taxpayers.

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

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The Regulations will enable TC to charge fees when reviewing applications submitted under the CNWA for (1) approval of works; and (2) exemption of a navigable water from a prohibition. As a result, proponents who require such NPP services are expected to incur a total of $13.64 million additional costs from 2024 to 2034 (present value in 2024 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2024 at a 7% discount rate). The fees will be used to recover a portion of the costs incurred by TC to provide these services, previously funded entirely by Canadian taxpayers.

While no comments were received on the cost-benefit analysis conducted for the proposed Regulations published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, the following changes have been made in this analysis:

• The analytical time frame is revised to 2024 to 2034, compared to the previous time frame from 2024 to 2033, to ensure that impacts on affected stakeholders and Indigenous partners are captured for a minimum 10-year time frame starting from the month of registration; and
• The value of the 2024 Canadian dollar has been used to assess impacts, instead of the previously used 2021 Canadian dollar.

As a result, the total cost to NPP service users, which is also the total benefit to Canadian taxpayers, is revised from $11.84 million to $13.64 million.

Analytical framework

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

Following the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s (TBS) Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, the scope of this analysis is at the societal level, analyzing costs and benefits attributed to Canadians. Since the introduction of fees for NPP services will result in a rebalancing of costs from taxpayers to those who directly benefit from the Regulations, the costs to users of NPP services/activities will have a neutral impact on Canadian society overall. This analysis estimated the impact of the Regulations over an 11-year period from 2024 to 2034, starting from June 2024 which is when the Regulations are registered. Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in present values in 2024 Canadian dollars and discounted to the base year of 2024 at a 7% discount rate. Note that costs to develop guidance and explanatory materials (see Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards section) are not included in this analysis, as per TBS’s Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis such costs are considered sunk as they are incurred prior to when the Regulations are registered.

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

Affected stakeholders and Indigenous partners

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

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

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

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

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

In the baseline scenario, TC would not charge fees to any users of NPP services. With regard to the review of applications for the approval of works, TC’s internal analysis, based on historical data of applications reviewed, estimated that, between 2024 and 2034 (i.e. the analytical period), approximately 788 applications for approval would be reviewed and subject to fees each year, across the three Fee Categories for review of applications for approval of works. Regarding the review of applications for exemptions, based on anticipated resource development and TC’s past experience with these requests, it was estimated that approximately three applications for exemption would be reviewed each year. Table 3 below presents the associated estimated number of applications to be reviewed for both approval of works and exemptions.

Under the regulatory scenario, fees will be charged (with a phase-in approach) on applications to be reviewed for approval of works and for exemption of a navigable waterway from a prohibition. TC acknowledges that the fees could potentially impact stakeholders and Indigenous peoples. However, any potential impact on the demand for applications for review is expected to be insignificant for the following reasons:

• most NPP applications for review are submitted by medium/large-sized businesses and governments; compared to the total costs of their work/projects, the fees are considered insignificant to influence their investment decisions;
• small businesses or other non-business/government stakeholders and Indigenous partners submitted a small portion of applications for review, which are mainly subject to Category 1 or Category 2, which comprise significantly lower fees;
• the fees are non-recurring and will be phased in gradually over approximately three years (except for exemptions, see Table 2); and
• there are limited alternatives and no perfect substitutes for the services provided by TC NPP.

As such, the analysis assumes that these fees will not impact the number of applications to be reviewed (Table 3).

Table 3: Number of applications to be reviewed, by fee category

Fee category	Annual average number of applications to be reviewed (2024–2034)	Total number of applications to be reviewed (2024–2034)
Category 1	84	880
Category 2	433	4,543
Category 3	268	2,818
Exemption	3	30
Total	788	8,271

Source: Transport Canada

Costs

The costs imposed on service users were estimated by multiplying the fee for each category and its associated number of applications to be reviewed per year. Using data presented in Table 3 above, the total costs associated with the Regulations would be approximately $13.64 million for the analytical period. More detail is presented in Table 4 below.

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

Fee category	Total cost
Category 1	$0.28
Category 2	$4.10
Category 3	$7.81
Exemption	$1.45
Total	$13.64

Benefits

As previously stated, the Regulations will result in a rebalancing of costs from Canadian taxpayers to users of NPP services. Therefore, the fees collected from applicants (i.e. $13.64 million in total) will also benefit Canadians (i.e. recovered costs).

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of calendar years: 11 (from 2024 to 2034)
• Base year for costing: 2024
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

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

Impacted stakeholder and Indigenous partners	Description of cost	Base year: 2024	2025	2026	2027	2028-2033 (total)	Final year: 2034	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Users of NPP services	Service fees	$0.69	$1.23	$1.39	$1.63	$7.73	$0.98	$13.64	$1.82
Impacted stakeholders and Indigenous partners	Total costs	$0.69	$1.23	$1.39	$1.63	$7.73	$0.98	$13.64	$1.82

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

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

Impacted stakeholders and Indigenous partners	Description of benefit	Base year: 2024	2025	2026	2027	2028-2033 (total)	Final year: 2034	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Canadians (represented by Transport Canada)	Recovered costs from fees paid by users of NPP services and activities	$0.69	$1.23	$1.39	$1.63	$7.73	$0.98	$13.64	$1.82
All stakeholders and Indigenous partners	Total benefits	$0.69	$1.23	$1.39	$1.63	$7.73	$0.98	$13.64	$1.82

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

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

Impacts	Base year: 2024	2025	2026	2027	2028-2033 (total)	Final year: 2034	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Total costs	$0.69	$1.23	$1.39	$1.63	$7.73	$0.98	$13.64	$1.82
Total benefits	$0.69	$1.23	$1.39	$1.63	$7.73	$0.98	$13.64	$1.82
Net impact	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Qualitative benefits

The service fees will result in increased equity by transferring a portion of the government’s costs to the primary users of NPP services (i.e. proponents seeking a review of an application for works or an exemption from prohibited activities), rather than the Canadian taxpayer. The fees will help reduce the strain on the Government’s fiscal framework. In the Fee proposal for the Navigation Protection Program, the public-private benefit assessment (PPBA) revealed that 80% of the benefits of the NPP’s review and approval services would accrue to the proponent or owner of the work for applications for works, and 100% of the benefits would accrue to the proponent who requested an exemption.

Sensitivity analysis

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

Discount rates

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

Number of applications to be reviewed

The central analysis uses approximately 788 applications to be reviewed each year. The sensitivity analysis presents the results if this number was increased or decreased by 5%.

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

Parameter	Total cost/benefit
Discount rate
Undiscounted	$19.44
3%	$16.57
7% table b6 note a	$13.64
Number of applications to be reviewed
– 5%	$12.96
Approx. 788 table b6 note a	$13.64
+ 5%	$14.33
Table b6 note(s) Table b6 note a Parameters used in the central analysis, including applications for approval and exemption. Return to table b6 note a referrer

Distributional analysis

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

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

Region	Fee category	Total costs	Share of total costs (%)
Atlantic table b7 note a	Category 1	$0.03	31.63%
	Category 2	$1.30
	Category 3	$2.37
	Exemption	$0.62
	Sub-total	$4.32
PNR table b7 note b	Category 1	$0.06	20.44%
	Category 2	$0.48
	Category 3	$1.72
	Exemption	$0.53
	Sub-total	$2.79
Pacific table b7 note c	Category 1	$0.15	19.33%
	Category 2	$1.15
	Category 3	$1.29
	Exemption	$0.05
	Sub-total	$2.64
Quebec	Category 1	$0.04	16.11%
	Category 2	$0.92
	Category 3	$1.04
	Exemption	$0.20
	Sub-total	$2.20
Ontario	Category 1	$0.01	12.49%
	Category 2	$0.24
	Category 3	$1.40
	Exemption	$0.05
	Sub-total	$1.70
Total		$13.64	100%
Table b7 note(s) Table b7 note a Atlantic Region includes four provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Return to table b7 note a referrer Table b7 note b PNR (Prairie and Northern Region) includes Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories. Return to table b7 note b referrer Table b7 note c Pacific Regions includes British Columbia. Return to table b7 note c referrer

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that small businesses will be impacted by the Regulations.^{footnote 3}

General impacts to small business

The proportion of applications submitted to the NPP by small businesses varies year to year. Most NPP applications are submitted by large or medium-sized companies, or public sector organizations such as other levels of government. Based on a review of applicants to the NPP in fiscal year 2018–19 and publicly available information, 33 small businesses accounted for about 10.6% of private sector applications. These companies received approvals for 46 applications for works which, under the fee structure, would be subject to Category 1 or Category 2. For purposes of estimating the compliance costs to small business due to the Regulations, it is assumed that 33 small businesses would submit 10.6% of private sector NPP applications for review subject to Category 1 and Category 2, respectively, every year over the analytical time frame: it is estimated that there would be an annual average of eight applications for review subject to Category 1 and 44 subject to Category 2. As a result, it was estimated that the Regulations would result in an incremental cost of $0.46 million on small businesses over the 11-year analytical period, or an annualized cost of $61,636 ($1,868 per affected business) [Table 10].

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

Considerations for the aquaculture sector

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

To address the aquaculture industry’s concerns and limit the impact to small businesses in this sector, aquaculture facilities were divided into two distinct types of works, Aquaculture Facility — Finfish, and Aquaculture Facility — Other than Finfish.

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

Small business lens summary

• Estimated number of small businesses that apply to the NPP: 33 per year
• Number of calendar years: 11 (2024 to 2034)
• Base year for costing: 2024
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 10: Compliance costs (in millions)

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Service fees (Category 1 and Category 2)	$0.06	$0.46
Total compliance cost	$0.06	$0.46

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply as the Regulations will not result in an incremental change in administrative burden on business. Fees are not considered administrative burden. Although the proposal will introduce a new regulatory title, the title is not expected to result in an incremental change in administrative burden and, therefore, is not counted as a title “IN” for the purposes of the rule.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom

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

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

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

United States

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

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

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

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

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

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

Strategic environmental assessment

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

Gender-based analysis plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The Regulations come into force on publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

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

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

TC has developed guidance and explanatory materials to ensure that the new fees are applied consistently, and to ensure that users of NPP services clearly understand how and when the fees apply, how each work type is defined, and what their responsibilities and liabilities are under the Regulations.

In accordance with the SFA, as noted, the fees will be indexed annually, based on the applicable Consumer Price Index published by Statistics Canada, beginning on April 1, 2025, for application review for approval of exemptions and April 1, 2028, for application review for approval of works. The inflation-adjusted fee levels and the date they will come into effect will be published in TC’s Fees Report and will be made available annually on the TC website.

Compliance and enforcement

Requirements for compliance and enforcement of the CNWA are already in place under the Act. Compliance with fees will be ensured by the requirement to pay them in full before an application is reviewed. In the event of any fees owing, outstanding fees will constitute a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Financial Administration Act.

Service standards

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

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

Contact

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