Transport Canada Signals Expanded Regulatory Focus on Hazardous and Noxious Substances in Renewed Marine Emergency Services Consultations

• Home
• Insights
• Insights
• Transport Canada Signals Expanded Regulatory Focus on Hazardous...

Transport Canada Signals Expanded Regulatory Focus on Hazardous and Noxious Substances in Renewed Marine Emergency Services Consultations

Transport Canada has launched a second round of consultations on proposed regulations intended to increase access to marine emergency services and strengthen responses to pollution incidents under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.[1] The consultation follows an initial discussion paper released in 2024 and reflects feedback received from industry, Indigenous groups, coastal communities, and other stakeholders.[2] Affected industry participants should consider engaging before the April 17, 2026 deadline.

To support the renewed engagement, Transport Canada has released a Second Discussion Paper[3] outlining key regulatory considerations and potential approaches. The consultation period is open until April 17, 2026.

Background: Strengthening Canada's Marine Safety Net

Canada's marine safety and environmental response framework relies on a mix of public and private actors to respond to emergencies and pollution incidents. Transport Canada's initiative forms part of broader federal efforts to modernize marine safety oversight, enhance preparedness, and ensure timely and effective responses to incidents that may pose risks to human life, property, and the marine environment.[4]

The proposed regulations would be made under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and are intended to clarify expectations, improve consistency across regions, and address identified gaps in access to emergency services, particularly in remote and high-traffic marine corridors.[5]

What the Second Discussion Paper Covers

The Second Discussion Paper builds on Transport Canada's 2024 proposals and incorporates feedback received during the first consultation phase.[6] It explores several interrelated themes, including:

• Access to Marine Emergency Services: Potential regulatory mechanisms to ensure vessels operating in Canadian waters have appropriate and timely access to marine emergency and response services.
• Pollution Incident Preparedness and Response: Enhanced requirements or standards aimed at improving readiness and coordination in the event of pollution incidents, including oil and hazardous substance spills.
• Roles and Responsibilities: Clarification of obligations among vessel operators, response organizations, and other stakeholders, with a focus on accountability and operational effectiveness.
• Geographic and Risk-Based Considerations: Discussion of whether regulatory requirements should vary based on risk profiles, traffic density, or regional conditions, including northern and remote areas.
• Alignment with Existing Frameworks: Consideration of how new regulations would interact with existing marine safety, environmental protection, and emergency management regimes at the federal level, such as, under the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

What Has Changed Since 2024

Compared to the first discussion paper released in 2024, the second paper places greater emphasis on:

• Addressing stakeholder concerns regarding costs, duplication, and operational feasibility;
• Refining the scope of potential regulatory obligations; and
• Improving clarity around implementation timelines and compliance expectations.

Why This Matters

If implemented, the proposed regulations could reshape how vessel emergency services arrangement and pollution response obligations are allocated across vessel owners, vessel operators, and service providers. In particular, the Second Discussion Paper signals that Transport Canada is evaluating a broader pollution response framework that more clearly captures hazardous and noxious substances ("HNS"), alongside oil spill preparedness regimes.[7]

To understand the significance of this shift, it is important to note that, unlike oil, which is already subject to a well-established marine preparedness and response planning system involving certified response organizations and prescribed planning requirements, the regulatory treatment of HNS incidents has historically lacked a dedicated federal preparedness planning regime comparable to that applicable to oil.[8] HNS can include a wide spectrum of substances transported by sea, such as chemicals, liquefied gases, toxic industrial products, and other cargoes capable of posing risks to human health, property, or the marine environment when released.[9] These substances present distinct response challenges, including toxicity, reactivity, dispersion behaviour, fire or explosion risk, and specialized containment or recovery requirements. In short, HNS incidents are often more complex and unpredictable than oil spills, making preparedness planning more challenging.

The discussion paper indicates that Transport Canada is considering how preparedness and response obligations might be clarified or expanded for HNS scenarios, potentially aligning aspects of HNS planning with concepts already familiar in the oil regime.[10] This raises practical questions for industry participants regarding the scope of substances captured, applicable risk thresholds, and the entities that may bear compliance obligations. HNS-handling facilities in particular, being facilities involved in the loading, unloading, or transfer of HNS cargoes, may face increased scrutiny. While regulatory definitions will ultimately govern, an HNS handling facility would generally be understood to include terminals, ports, marine transfer sites, or other operations where hazardous or noxious substances are received, stored, or transferred between vessels and shore - though Transport Canada has not yet issued formal definitions for these purposes.[11] Such facilities may be distinguished from oil handling facilities but could become subject to analogous preparedness planning, risk assessment, and coordination requirements depending on Transport Canada's final approach.

For industry participants, the implications are not merely technical or procedural. Expanded HNS-related obligations could influence infrastructure planning, emergency response arrangements, contractual risk allocation, insurance considerations, and compliance frameworks. Entities operating multi-cargo terminals, chemical facilities, bulk liquid terminals, or specialized marine transfer operations may wish to assess how potential regulatory changes intersect with existing safety and environmental management systems. Given that stakeholder feedback during this consultation phase will directly shape the structure and scope of any final regulations, early engagement is particularly valuable.

Next Steps and How to Participate

The consultation period for the second discussion paper closes on April 17, 2026. Transport Canada is seeking written submissions and feedback on the proposed regulatory considerations.

Stakeholders are encouraged to review the discussion materials and provide input on issues such as regulatory scope, proportionality, regional impacts, and implementation challenges. Feedback received during this phase will inform the development of draft regulations for future consideration.

The environmental and transportation teams at McMillan will continue to monitor and report on these updates. If you have any questions about how these potential regulations, or marine emergency services and pollution response requirements more generally, may impact your business, please contact the authors of this bulletin.

[1] Transport Canada, Potential regulations to increase access to marine emergency services and improve response to pollution incidents - Second consultation (modified 26 January, 2026).
[2] Transport Canada, Potential regulations to increase access to marine emergency services and improve response to pollution incidents (modified 06 June, 2025).
[3] Transport Canada, Potential regulations to increase access to marine emergency services and improve response to pollution incidents - Second Discussion Paper (modified 26 January, 2026).
[4] See note 1.
[5] See note 3.
[6] See note 2.
[7] See note 3.
[8] See note 2.
[9] See note 3.
[10] Ibid.
[11] See note 2.

By Brandon Hsu, Radha Curpen, Joanna Dawson, Sharon G.K. Singh, and Talia Gordner

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2026