Browse regulations

Cost recovery regulations for National Energy Board operations, charging large energy companies based on their usage and size, with provisions for relief and adjustments

These regulations create administrative overhead, distort market signals, and impose compliance costs that ultimately raise energy prices for consumers. The complex relief provisions and differential treatment based on company size create artificial barriers and inefficiencies in Canada's energy sector.

Repealed regulation with no current effect

Already repealed and obsolete; no current regulatory burden exists

No substantive regulation text provided. Sections 1-3 are marked as repealed by SOR/2011-16, section 3.

Regulation is already repealed/irrelevant. No current regulatory text to evaluate; placeholder content only.

Regulations 1-6 have been repealed (SOR/2011-15, s. 6)

Regulations are obsolete and already repealed. Keeping repealed regulations creates regulatory clutter and confusion. Original regulations likely had unintended costs that justified their repeal.

This regulation document consists entirely of repealed provisions from SOR/2011-87, section 11, indicating it was completely removed from the legal code in 2011. All parts, sections, and schedules have been struck down.

Repealed in 2011, indicating it was either obsolete, ineffective, or harmful. Keeping repealed regulations on the books creates legal uncertainty and unnecessary administrative burden.

Document consists almost entirely of repealed sections (SOR/2010-277, s. 79) with no active regulatory provisions. It is a skeletal framework of a largely repealed regulation.

Already repealed and obsolete. The remaining structure serves no current regulatory purpose; maintaining it creates confusion and legal uncertainty. Its original repeal indicates it was flawed or unnecessary, and complete removal streamlines the codebase.

Mandates financial institutions to provide clear, simple, non-misleading information about registered products (RRSPs, RESPs, RRIFs, RDSPs) to consumers, requiring written/oral disclosure (with exceptions for remote account opening), public charge lists at branches and online, and advance notice of term amendments.

Deletion would increase deception and uninformed decisions, especially given the complexity of registered products. Private market solutions are inadequate for these infrequent, technical purchases; mandatory clarity at low compliance cost protects consumers and maintains trust in tax-advantaged savings.

This regulation mandates that financial institutions (retail associations and trust/loan companies) provide clear, written and oral disclosures about deposit-type instruments before or at the time of agreement, covering interest rates, fees, terms, early redemption penalties, deposit insurance eligibility, and advertising requirements. It includes special rules for phone, electronic, and mail transactions, plus cancellation rights for automatic renewals.

The regulation imposes costly, one-size-fits-all disclosure mandates that assume consumers cannot protect themselves in competitive markets. It substitutes bureaucratic standardization for market-driven transparency, raising compliance costs that are passed to consumers, stifling product innovation, and creating artificial barriers to entry. Market forces, reputation systems, and fraud laws would provide more efficient, tailored information disclosure without the unintended consequences of centralized mandates, including reduced competition and regulatory rigidity.

Prescribes who must report deposits of deleterious substances under Fisheries Act, requiring immediate notification to provincial emergency services or pollution prevention officers for vessels and oil facilities.

Without mandatory reporting, pollution incidents would remain hidden, preventing timely response and accountability. The regulation addresses a clear externality problem by ensuring polluters cannot evade detection when harming Canada's fisheries—a valuable common resource. The minimal reporting burden is justified by the substantial environmental and economic costs of unreported pollution.

Designates who must be notified and provides contact information for reporting environmental emergencies, spills, or releases of substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Lists 24-hour emergency telephone services for each province/territory and specifies notification requirements for vessel masters, facility operators, and others.

Eliminating this would leave Canadians worse off by creating confusion during environmental emergencies, delaying response times, and potentially causing greater harm from unreported spills. The regulation achieves a clear, essential public safety function—coordinating emergency response—in a way that would be difficult to replicate otherwise. The costs of compliance are minimal (making a phone call) while the benefits of rapid, coordinated response to protect public health and the environment are substantial. The regulation prevents the tragedy of the commons by ensuring those responsible for releases cannot externalize emergency response costs onto society.

Regulation establishes detailed occupational health and safety standards for workplaces on aircraft, covering noise exposure limits, hearing protection, electrical safety, sanitation facilities, food handling, water quality, and hazardous materials (especially asbestos) management. It imposes specific requirements on employers including certified equipment, qualified personnel, written procedures, extensive record-keeping (10-30 years), mandatory training, and facility specifications.

Imposes substantial compliance costs that reduce airline competitiveness and increase consumer prices. One-size-fits-all mandates ignore contextual trade-offs employers and employees would negotiate based on individual preferences. Prescriptive technical specifications stifle safety innovation. Extensive record-keeping diverts resources from productive uses. Central planners cannot determine optimal safety measures for diverse aircraft operations (knowledge problem). Creates enforcement bureaucracy that extracts resources from the market. Unintended consequences: reduced employment, diminished service to smaller markets, substitution with contract labor. Most provisions duplicate what responsible employers would already implement under liability and market pressures.

This regulation incorporates numerous Ontario environmental and land use statutes (Clean Water Act, Environmental Protection Act, etc.) and applies them to specific Fort William First Nation reserve lands in Thunder Bay, with adaptations. It subjects the project lands to Ontario's environmental regulatory regime with modifications to account for federal jurisdiction, including altered definitions, inspection limitations respecting federal offices, and adjustments to registry references.

Keeping this regulation imposes a complex matrix of Ontario environmental regulations on First Nations lands, creating burdensome permitting, compliance, and inspection requirements that delay development, increase costs, and restrict economic self-determination. The command-and-control approach conflicts with property rights and creates perverse incentives: resources are diverted from productive use to compliance, while the unseen cost is forgone economic activity, jobs, and community benefits. The regulation replicates provincial regulatory overreach without considering whether lighter-touch alternatives—such as liability rules, market-based mechanisms, or tribal self-regulation—could achieve legitimate environmental goals at far lower social cost.

Prescribes fees for dealer's licence applications under the Controlled Substances Regulations: $4,510 per premises with 2% annual increases, plus remission when fee exceeds 1% of gross revenue. Exempts publicly funded healthcare, government, and scientific research. Requires audited sales records if Minister questions revenue statements.

The $4,510+ annual fee (with compounding 2% escalator) creates a significant barrier to entry, particularly for small legal operators, reducing competition and supply in controlled substances markets. The remission mechanism adds substantial administrative complexity and audit burdens that divert resources from productive activity. This fee structure inflates regulatory costs without justification that such a burdensome mechanism is necessary to achieve legitimate public safety objectives. Canadians would be better served by eliminating this bureaucratic hurdle, allowing more participants to operate legally, increasing market competition, and reducing compliance overhead.

Asset freeze regulation targeting politically exposed foreign persons from Tunisia, prohibiting Canadians from dealing with their property or providing financial services.

Asset freezes create unintended consequences by disrupting voluntary transactions, harming innocent parties who may have legitimate claims to frozen assets, and setting precedents for government intervention in private property rights. The costs of enforcement and compliance often exceed benefits, while alternative mechanisms like private arbitration or international dispute resolution could address concerns about politically exposed persons without blanket restrictions.

This regulation requires television broadcasters to air public service announcements about the analog-to-digital television conversion, including specific broadcast frequency requirements, content mandates, and website posting obligations for stations in major markets or with certain technical specifications.

This regulation imposes costly compliance burdens on broadcasters for a transition that was already completed years ago, creating unnecessary operational overhead while the digital conversion is no longer relevant to current viewers who have moved to cable/satellite/streaming services.