These regulations have been repealed and are no longer in effect
Regulations are already repealed and obsolete, representing unnecessary regulatory burden that should be fully removed from the code
Regulation designates certain goods as duty-free 'ships' stores' for vessels and aircraft on international voyages, with specific eligibility rules, quantity limits, sealing requirements, and reporting obligations to prevent abuse while facilitating international shipping and travel.
Deleting would raise shipping costs, making Canada less competitive and increasing consumer prices; the regulation's narrow scope and safeguards are necessary for a legitimate duty exemption that supports international trade.
This regulation establishes fees for consular travel documents (passports, certificates of identity, and refugee travel papers) issued by the Canadian government, setting a $25 fee for adults 16+ years old, with transitional provisions for applications made before the regulation came into force.
Travel document fees create unnecessary barriers to mobility and impose compliance costs on citizens. The fee discourages legitimate travel, particularly for lower-income individuals, while the administrative burden of collecting and processing fees outweighs the minimal revenue generated. Free travel documents would better serve Canada's interests in promoting international engagement and reducing bureaucratic friction.
This regulation appears to be a series of repealed provisions from a larger regulatory framework. The specific regulation was repealed in 2010 under SOR/2010-65, section 5, making these provisions obsolete and no longer in effect.
These provisions were already repealed in 2010 and are now obsolete. Keeping repealed regulations creates unnecessary regulatory clutter and confusion, while providing no current benefit to Canadians. The original regulations likely had unintended costs that led to their repeal, and maintaining repealed text serves no purpose in modern governance.
This regulation establishes asset protection requirements for fraternal benefit societies, including procedures for handling and safeguarding assets, custody of securities, daily deposit requirements, registration of securities, bonding and insurance requirements, and notice requirements for cancellation of bonds/insurance policies.
The regulation creates unnecessary compliance costs and operational complexity for fraternal benefit societies without providing commensurate benefits. The detailed custody, registration, and bonding requirements impose significant administrative burden on organizations that could manage their assets through private contractual arrangements. The 30-day notice requirement for bond/insurance cancellation creates artificial rigidity in risk management. These protections can be achieved more efficiently through market mechanisms and private insurance choices rather than prescriptive federal regulation.
This regulation establishes requirements for cooperative credit associations to protect their assets through record-keeping, custody procedures, insurance bonds, and security registration. It mandates written procedures for handling assets, daily deposit of transaction proceeds, custody of securities in secure locations, registration of securities in the association's name, and insurance bonds to indemnify against losses from dishonest acts or damage/destruction of assets.
Canadians would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it provides essential safeguards for cooperative credit associations that protect depositors' money and maintain financial system stability. The requirements for secure custody of securities, insurance bonds against dishonest acts, and proper record-keeping prevent fraud and asset loss that could otherwise devastate these financial institutions and the communities they serve. Without these protections, cooperative credit associations would be vulnerable to theft, fraud, and mismanagement, potentially causing significant financial harm to members and undermining trust in Canada's cooperative banking sector.
The Protection of Assets (Insurance Companies) Regulations set minimum standards for how insurance companies must handle, safeguard, and record ownership of assets (primarily securities). It requires written procedures, secure custody (either by the company or authorized custodians), proper registration, daily deposit of cash proceeds, and maintenance of bonds/insurance against employee dishonesty and asset loss. The goal is to protect assets owned or held by insurance companies from loss, fraud, theft, or destruction.
Canadians would be worse off because insurer mismanagement or misappropriation of policyholder assets could lead to insolvency and denied claims. Uniform mandatory standards are necessary because individual policyholders cannot effectively monitor or enforce proper asset protection, making private alternatives inadequate; market forces alone would permit a race to the bottom on safeguards.
These regulations establish mandatory procedures for banks to safeguard assets, maintain records of securities, ensure proper custody arrangements, require daily deposits of security transaction proceeds, mandate registration of securities, and require insurance bonds against dishonest acts and asset loss.
These regulations impose costly compliance burdens, create moral hazard by reducing market discipline, prevent natural risk pricing mechanisms, and substitute bureaucratic oversight for voluntary contractual arrangements between banks and customers.
These regulations set minimum standards for how trust and loan companies must safeguard client assets. They require written procedures, secure custody arrangements (either in-house or with approved custodians), daily cash deposits, security registration, and maintenance of fidelity bonds and property insurance. Coverage levels are determined by directors based on asset value and risk factors.
The regulation imposes compulsory procedural and insurance requirements that increase compliance costs, reduce flexibility, and create barriers to entry. These costs are ultimately borne by clients and reduce competitiveness. Market discipline through fiduciary duties, liability, and private insurance already incentivizes proper asset protection without one-size-fits-all mandates. The unseen effects include stifled innovation in custody arrangements and reduced supply of trust services, harming Canadian consumers and businesses.
Technical regulation defining terms for section 476 of the Insurance Companies Act, which limits debt obligations of property/casualty and marine insurance companies. Defines 'prescribed subsidiary', 'debt obligation', calculation of 'aggregate total debt obligations', 'total assets', and sets the 'prescribed percentage' at 2% for debt-to-asset ratio compliance.
Already repealed (SOR/2009-296). The original debt limitation regulation was an unnecessary restriction on capital structure that distorted insurance companies' ability to access financing efficiently. In a free market, policyholders and investors—not regulators—should assess and bear the risk of an insurer's leverage. The regulation raised costs, reduced competitiveness, and created barriers to entry without preventing harms that would be better addressed through market discipline and transparent financial disclosure.
Regulation prescribes minimum percentages of assets that foreign insurance companies must maintain in Canada: 15% for foreign life companies (certain classes), 10% for foreign life companies (other classes), and 10% for foreign property/casualty/marine companies. Section 1 has been repealed.
This protectionist asset localization requirement distorts global capital allocation, reduces competition from foreign insurers, imposes compliance costs, and prevents Canadian policyholders from benefiting from optimal global investment strategies. Free capital mobility enhances economic efficiency and consumer welfare.
Prescribes that laboratory, radiological and other diagnostic services generally available in a health care facility, along with the administration of drugs in conjunction, are exempt from GST/HST under the Excise Tax Act, with applicability rules for supplies after March 4, 2010.
This selective exemption distorts market signals, misallocates resources toward favored services, adds complexity, and narrows the tax base, ultimately increasing rates on other goods. The health care system would be more efficient and competitive if all services were taxed equally, with affordability addressed through transparent direct transfers rather than discriminatory exemptions.
These regulations have been repealed since 2010 and are no longer in effect.
Regulations are already repealed and obsolete, representing unnecessary regulatory burden that has been eliminated.
These regulations implement the Competition Act's merger notification requirements by defining how to calculate the asset and revenue thresholds that trigger mandatory notification. They establish rules for valuing assets and gross revenues, specify timing (using audited financial statements within 15 months), provide methods for converting foreign currencies, contain adjustments to avoid duplication, and include an exemption for asset securitization transactions. The regulations also detail the information parties must submit when notifying a proposed transaction.
Deleting these regulations would create legal uncertainty, expand Commissioner discretion through vague statutory standards, and likely increase compliance costs and litigation. The regulations provide technical precision that narrows the merger control regime's application and include a valuable exemption for asset securitization. While the underlying Competition Act merger provisions themselves conflict with free market principles, these regulations impose minimal additional burden and create clarity that protects businesses from arbitrary enforcement.
These regulations establish procedures for Canada Post to declare and communicate postal service interruptions due to emergencies, natural disasters, accidents, or labor disputes. They require public notice via broadcast or newspaper publication and specify that affected mail must not be accepted during interruptions.
This regulation creates unnecessary bureaucracy for Canada Post's emergency communications. Private carriers already have efficient notification systems for service disruptions. The requirement for government-mandated broadcasting and newspaper publication adds costs without improving public safety or service reliability. Free market competition would naturally incentivize better communication of service interruptions.