Annual Report to Parliament for the 2016 to 2017 Fiscal Year: Benefits and Costs of Significant Federal Regulations, and the Implementation of the One-for-One Rule
This is the first annual report to Parliament on the benefits and costs of new federal regulations.
Parliament and Canadians expect Canada’s regulatory system to function well and to be responsive and transparent. This report is part of regular monitoring of certain aspects of the system to help ensure its overall health.
This report has two main sections:
- Section 1 describes the benefits and costs of regulatory proposals that were made by the Governor in Council (GIC) and that had significant impacts
- Section 2 reports on the implementation of the One-for-One Rule, in fulfillment of the Red Tape Reduction Act’s reporting requirement
The regulations reported on in this document were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, between , and .
On this page
- Message from the President
- Types of federal regulations
- Section 1: benefits and costs of regulations
- Section 2: Implementation of the One-for-One Rule
- Appendix 1: detailed report on CBAs for the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year
- Appendix 2: detailed report on the One-for-One Rule for the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year
Message from the President
As the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister responsible for federal regulatory policy and oversight of the regulatory system, I am pleased to present this report to Parliament. It is the first Annual Report to Parliament on the Benefits and Costs of Significant Federal Regulations, and the Implementation of the One-for-One Rule for the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year.
This report demonstrates the Government’s commitment to openness and transparency by engaging Parliament and Canadians on the management of federal regulations. It outlines, in an integrated and comprehensive manner, key information on the costs and benefits of significant regulations and on the implementation of the One-for-One Rule, an important element of the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce needless administrative burden.
Canada benefits from a strong regulatory system, built on principles of protecting and advancing the public interest, developing regulations transparently and openly, making decisions based on evidence, and supporting a fair and competitive economy.
We should always be looking to make improvements. We will continue to find efficiencies and reduce unnecessary regulatory differences across jurisdictions to make the regulatory system less burdensome for businesses and consumers.
I invite you to read this report to see how the Government is designing effective regulations to protect our environment and the health, safety and security of Canadians.
Original signed by:
The Honourable Scott Brison
President of the Treasury Board
Types of federal regulations
Regulations are a type of law intended to change behaviours and achieve public policy objectives. They have legal binding effect, and are made by every order of government in Canada in accordance with responsibilities set out in the Constitution Act.
Regulations are used to support a broad range of objectives, such as:
- health and safety
- culture and heritage
- a strong and equitable economy
- the environment
Federal regulations deal with areas of federal jurisdiction, such as patent rules, vehicle emissions standards and drug licensing.
There are three principal categories of federal regulations, based on where the authority to make regulations lies:
- Governor in Council (GIC) regulations are reviewed by a group of ministers who recommend approval to the Governor General. This role is performed by the Treasury Board.
- Ministerial regulations are made by a minister who is given the authority to do so by law.
- Example: The Health of Animals Act gives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the authority to make regulations that permit compensation for costs related to the disposal of animals as part of disease control activities by the Government of Canada. Such authority includes setting maximum amounts of compensation or the manner for determining the maximum amounts.
- Other regulations made by an agency, tribunal or other entity that has been given the authority by Parliament to do so in a given area.
- Example: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission can make regulations related to broadcasting and telecommunications.
The findings of this report are based on GIC regulations only, which represent approximately two thirds of all regulations approved per year.
In the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year, a total of 324 regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, of which:
- 190 were GIC regulations (59% of all regulations)
- 134 were non-GIC regulations (41% of all regulations)
Section 1: benefits and costs of regulations
The process for making regulations in Canada
There are three main aspects to the process of making federal regulations in Canada:
- Regulatory development: Departments and agencies develop proposals for regulations based on the authorities established in legislation and on expectations set out in the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat works with departments and agencies to:
- develop appropriate evidence, such as a cost-benefit analysis
- challenge the analysis in regulatory proposals for consistency with the Cabinet directive
- Central oversight: In general, proposed regulations are submitted by sponsoring ministers for consideration by the Governor in Council, which is defined in the Constitution Act as the “Governor General acting by and with the Advice of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.” Since 2003, the Treasury Board has been designated as the Cabinet committee responsible for considering GIC matters, that is, the approval of regulations and most Orders in Council.
- Public transparency: Proposed GIC regulations are, with Treasury Board approval, published for public comment in the Canada Gazette, Part I (pre-publication).
- Pre-publication of regulatory proposals provides interested stakeholders and all Canadians with a description of the intent of proposed regulations and of the justification for them, with proposed regulatory text.
- Comments received following pre-publication can inform the final design of a regulation and the impact analysis for that regulation.
- Final regulations are, with GIC approval, published in Canada Gazette, Part II.
What is cost-benefit analysis (CBA)?
CBA is a decision-making methodology to determine the best approach to achieve a goal. CBA identifies and measures the positive and negative impacts of proposals so that decision-makers can determine the best course of action.
In the regulatory context, CBA is a structured approach to identify and consider the economic, environmental and social effects of a regulatory proposal. Since 1986, the Government of Canada has required that a CBA be done for most regulatory proposals in order to assess their potential impact on areas such as:
- the environment
- other sectors of society
Regulators must make a convincing case to decision-makers, stakeholders and Canadians that the regulatory approach recommended is superior to non-regulatory alternatives. Regulators must demonstrate that:
- the benefits to Canadians outweigh the costs
- the regulation has been structured so that the benefits outweigh costs as much as possible
The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management requires that departments and agencies assess the benefits and costs of regulatory and non-regulatory measures, including scenarios where the government does not intervene.
The results of the CBA are summarized in a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS), which is published with proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I. The RIAS enables the public to:
- review the analysis
- provide comments to regulators before final consideration by the Governor in Council and subsequent publication of approved final regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II
Types of CBA
The scope and depth of analysis required for regulatory proposals depends on the cost component of each proposal. In general, the greater the estimated cost of the proposal, the more comprehensive the analysis of benefits and costs must be, and the greater the effort required to undertake this analysis.
For federal regulatory proposals, benefits and costs can be described in one of three ways:
- Qualitative: a cost or benefit that is only described and not measured physically
- Example: a qualitative benefit could be expressed as “this proposal will improve air quality”
- Quantitative: a cost or benefit that is expressed physically or as a quantity
- Example: a quantified benefit could be expressed as “this proposal is expected to reduce the incidences of respiratory illnesses in Canadian children by 90,000”
- Monetized: a cost or benefit for which the quantity is converted into a currency amount (for example, dollars) using an approach that considers both the value of an impact and when it occurs.Footnote 1
- Example: a monetized benefit could be expressed as “this proposal is expected to save the Canadian health care system $10 million per year over the next 10 years through reduced hospital admissions”
Regulatory proposals are assessed through triage and are categorized according to their expected level of impact. The level of impact is determined primarily by the anticipated cost of the proposal.
|Present value of costs (over 10 years)||Annual cost|
|Low impact||Less than $10 million||Less than $1 million|
|Medium impact||$10 million to $100 million||$1 million to $10 million|
|High impact||More than $100 million||More than $10 million|
The level of impact indicated in the preliminary assessment of the proposal determines the type of CBA required. The degree of analysis and assessment required for a given regulatory proposal should be proportional to the anticipated level of the regulation’s impact. This proportionate approach is consistent with regulatory best practices set out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
|Description of costs||Description of benefits|
|Low impact||Qualitative or quantitative||Qualitative|
|Medium impact||Quantified and monetized||Quantified and monetized
(if data are readily available)
|High impact||Quantified and monetized||Quantified and monetized|
Regulatory proposals may include types of analysis beyond the requirements set out above. For example:
- a proposal that has a high or medium impact may include qualitative benefits and costs to support the monetized and quantified benefits and costs
- a low-impact proposal may include quantified or monetized analysis
This report covers only GIC regulations and is limited to those that are considered significant (those that have a medium impact or high impact).Footnote 2 Figures are taken from RIASs for regulations published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year. To remove the effect of inflation, figures are expressed in 2012 dollars and vary from those published in the RIASs. This approach permits meaningful and consistent comparison, regardless of the year in which outcomes were originally measured.
Overview of benefits and costs of regulations
Of the 190 GIC regulations finalized in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year:
- 170 were low-impact (89% of GIC regulations and 52% of all regulations)
- 20 were significant (11% of GIC regulations and 6% of all regulations)
Monetized benefits and costs
An analysis of monetized benefits and costs is required for all significant regulatory proposals. As mentioned, medium-impact proposals are not required to monetize benefits when data is not readily available. Although some low-impact proposals include a full CBA, such proposals are the exception. The data on CBAs provided in this report are from medium- and high-impact proposals.
Of the 20 significant regulations, 16 had monetized impacts, representing 8.4% of GIC regulations and 4.9% of all regulations. Of these:
- 14 had monetized benefits and costs
- 2 had monetized costs only
Of the 14 regulations that had monetized estimates of both benefits and costs (expressed as total present value.Footnote 3):
- total costs were $7,016,127,674
- total benefits were $16,602,777,694
- net benefits were $9,586,650,020
Following are examples of monetized benefits and costs identified in regulations in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year:
- The Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016:
- strengthened energy performance standards for currently regulated categories of products
- updated the previous regulations with new text that makes it easier for stakeholders to find and understand the requirements that apply to them
The cumulative net benefit associated with the measures in this regulation is estimated at $1.394 billion (net present value) to 2030.
- The Multi-Sector Air Pollutants Regulations set mandatory national performance standards for:
- certain industrial engines, such as for natural gas compression and generators
- industrial boilers and heaters
- cement kilns
These performance standards limit the quantity of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide that can be emitted and will result in significant health benefits for Canadians. From 2016 to 2035, the net benefit is:
- $6.047 billion (net present value) for measures related to engines
- $310 million (net present value) for measures related to boilers and heaters Footnote 4
- The Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (Nutrition Labelling, Other Labelling Provisions and Food Colours) will institute new requirements for the nutrition labelling of foods. Although industry and, ultimately, consumers will incur costs to comply with the new rules, the changes will result in:
- better health outcomes for Canadians
- lower costs to Canada’s health care system
The estimated net benefit of the changes is $1.295 billion (net present value) over 10 years.
CBAs frequently include quantitative and qualitative elements in addition to monetized analysis. The overall analysis of a proposal must consider this broader range of evidence. In the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year:
- 2 regulatory proposals had monetized costs that were equal to monetized benefits
- 4 regulatory proposals had monetized costs that were greater than monetized benefits (see Table 1 for details)
For detailed benefits and costs by regulation, see Appendix 1.
Quantitative benefits and costs
In addition to monetized information, an analysis of quantified benefits and costs can be presented in significant regulatory proposals, and can be included in low-impact proposals if available.
Information on quantified benefits and costs is frequently used as the basis for monetized analysis in proposals. Such information can also be used on its own, such as when monetized benefits and costs are not present. Generally, such a case would be when there are no data, or the data are of insufficient quality, to allow costs or benefits to be monetized.
To be considered monetized, the dollar values used in a CBA are adjusted so that values and prices that occur at different times are equal:
- to their exchange value (inflation adjustment)
- when they occur (discounting)
In instances where an analysis includes dollar figures that have not been converted to fit within a CBA framework, dollar figures are considered to be quantitative impacts.
For the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year, 13 of the 20 significant regulatory proposals included quantified costs and/or benefits:
- 4 were medium-impact proposals
- 9 were high-impact proposals
- Of these 13 significant regulations, 1 medium-impact and 3 high-impact proposals provided costing that did not apply cost-benefit conventions, so the analysis was considered to be quantified instead of monetized
The following are examplesFootnote 5 of quantified benefits and costs identified in significant regulations in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year:
- The Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations add a portion of Trail Creek, near the Red Chris Mine in British Columbia, to Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations. This addition allows for the expansion of a tailings storage facility that will infill a portion of a creek adjacent to the mine. The implementation of a fish habitat compensation plan will increase local fish habitat near the mine by 8,781 m2, offsetting the 1,905 m2 of fish habitat impacted.
- Under the Regulations Amending the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations and the Apprentice Loans Regulations, increased benefits in the form of non-repayable Canada Student Grants will assist 21,002 students (nationally, over 10 years) who because of financial reasons could not otherwise pursue their studies to complete their education and become skilled workers.
- New requirements for training, labelling and safety data sheets under the Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Labour Code will provide greater information concerning hazardous materials for workers in the federally regulated workforce that handles such materials. The requirements are expected to result in 4 fewer work-related injuries per year and 1 fewer work-related fatality every 3 years between 2015 and 2034.
- The Regulations Amending the Employment Insurance Regulations and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations eliminated the new entrants and re-entrants provisions in the Employment Insurance program, thus expanding access to Employment Insurance and providing additional support to 50,500 claimants who may be engaged in non-standard work and who experience reduced job security and income predictability.
A list of quantitative benefits and/or costs included in significant regulations in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year can be found in Appendix 1 (Table 4).
Qualitatively described benefits and costs
Qualitative benefits and costs form the basis for the analysis of low-impact regulatory proposals. They also provide useful information when considered with monetized and quantitative data in significant proposals.
Qualitatively described benefits and costs are categorized according to the importance of the impact described:
- primary: costs and/or benefits that are a direct and intended result of the regulation
- secondary: costs and/or benefits that are not central to the regulation but may still be significant
- tertiary: costs and/or benefits that are of minor importance and may not be directly attributable to the regulation
This report considers only the primary and secondary benefits and costs included in significant GIC regulatory proposals.
In the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year, a number of significant regulations included qualitative analysis of benefits and costs in addition to the monetized and/or quantitative analysis required:
- 9 of the 20 significant proposals included qualitatively described benefits and/or costs
- altogether, these proposals listed 33 qualitatively described benefits and 5 costs
- a further 3 significant proposals included only tertiary benefits and/or costs
Following are examples of qualitative benefits and costs identified in significant regulations in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year:
- The Cribs, Cradles and Bassinets Regulations were introduced to help improve the safety of these products to further safeguard against injuries and deaths, while bringing the majority of the Canadian regulatory requirements in line with those of the United States. In addition to the monetized analysis, the regulation identified a number of qualitative benefits and costs. According to the analysis provided:
- industry could experience lower compliance costs because of improved alignment of US and Canadian regulatory requirements
- consumers were expected to benefit from avoided injuries and fatalities relating to the new requirements for cradle vertical impacting, and for accessories to cribs, cradles and bassinets
- The Emergency Order for the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes / St. Lawrence: Canadian Shield Population) accelerated the coming into force of protections for the Western Chorus Frog to help prevent activities that may further damage its habitat. The monetized analysis was supported by a qualitative indication that the emergency order was expected to contribute to the recovery of the species and protect it from an imminent threat, thus contributing to overall biodiversity in the area.
- The Regulations Amending the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations and the Apprentice Loans Regulations introduced changes to Canada student loans and Canada student grants to make post-secondary education more affordable for students from low- and middle-income families. The RIAS included both monetized and quantitative analysis of benefits and costs, and bolstered this evidence with additional qualitative information. The regulations indicated that students who otherwise could not pursue post-secondary education without the regulatory amendments would experience:
- lower rates of unemployment and shorter periods of unemployment due to post-secondary credentials
- greater health and longevity
- intergenerational effects (improved health, effects of education on child development and future earnings of children)
A list of proposals for significant regulations in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year that included an analysis of qualitative benefits and/or costs can be found in Appendix 1 (Table 5).
Section 2: Implementation of the One-for-One Rule
The One-for-One Rule
In order to comply with the annual reporting requirements of the Red Tape Reduction Act, this report also provides an update on the implementation of the One-for-One Rule.
The One-for-One Rule, instituted in the 2012 to 2013 fiscal year, seeks to control the growth of administrative burden on business that arises from regulations. When a new or amended regulation increases the administrative burden on business, the rule requires that the cost of this burden be offset via other regulatory changes. Administrative burden includes:
- planning, collecting, processing and reporting of information
- completing forms
- retaining data required by the federal government to comply with a regulation
Compliance also includes:
- filling out licence applications and forms
- finding and compiling data for audits
- becoming familiar with the government’s requirements for providing information
The rule also requires that an existing regulation be repealed each time a new regulation imposes new administrative burden on business.
The rule applies to all regulatory changes that impose new administrative burden costs on business. There are three categories of exemptions established under the Red Tape Reduction Act:
- regulations related to tax or tax administration
- regulations where there is no discretion regarding what is to be included in the regulation (for example, treaty obligations or the implementation of a court decision)
- regulations made in response to an emergency or other unique circumstance where compliance with the rule would compromise the Canadian economy, public health or safety
Regulators are required to monetize and report on:
- the change in administrative burden
- feedback from stakeholders and Canadians on departments’ and agencies’ estimates of administrative burden costs or savings to business
- the number of regulations created or removed
As with CBA, the dollar values used in estimates of administrative burden are adjusted so that values and prices that occur at different times are equal in their exchange value (inflation adjustment) and when they occur (discounting). In this report, all figures related to the One-for-One Rule are expressed in 2012 dollars to permit meaningful and consistent comparison of regulations, regardless of the fiscal year in which they were introduced.
In 2015, the Red Tape Reduction Act gave the One-for-One Rule the force of law and enshrined the existing policy requirement in law. The act and its associated regulations also require that an annual report on the implementation of the rule be published.
Key findings on the implementation of the One-for-One Rule
The main findings on changes in administrative regulatory burden and the overall number of regulations for the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year are as follows:
- Administrative burden reductions of $455,692 per year were achieved in new regulations in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year, resulting in over $30.2 million reduced since the 2012 to 2013 fiscal year
- 14 regulatory titles (net) were taken off the books, with a total net reduction of 46 since the 2012 to 2013 fiscal year
A detailed report on regulations that had implications under the One-for-One Rule is in Appendix 2.
The regulation removing the most regulatory burden in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year was the Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Skilled Worker). This regulation reduced administrative burden to businesses by $1.2 million per year by removing the requirement for some employers to request a Labour Market Impact Assessment from Employment and Social Development Canada in order for their temporary foreign worker employees to qualify for arranged employment.
Appendix 1: detailed report on CBAs for the 2016 to 2017 fiscal yearFootnote 6
Table 1 indicates significant proposals that included both monetized benefits and monetized costs. These proposals may also include quantitative and/or qualitative CBA data to supplement the monetized CBA.
Table 2 indicates medium-impact proposals that included monetized costs and quantified benefits. Monetized costs are required for all significant proposals. A medium-impact proposal may express benefits in quantitative terms in situations where it is impractical to monetize those benefits.
|Department||Regulation||Costs (total present value)|
|Environment and Climate Change Canada||Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (SOR/2016-087)||$190,479|
Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (SOR/2016-230)
Note: Includes the Cannabis Exemption (Food and Drugs Act) Regulations (SOR/2016-231)
Table 3 indicates significant proposals for which monetized benefits and costs were:
- not provided
- based on quantified benefits and quantified costs
The table includes proposals for which dollar figures were:
- provided but did not conform to CBA conventions
- considered to be quantified rather than monetized
|Department of Finance Canada||Ferry-Boats Remission Order, 2016 (SOR/2016-140)|
|Department of Finance Canada||Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Film and Video Productions, 2016) (SOR/2016-262)|
|Department of Finance Canada||Order Amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, 2016-2 (Agri-food Inputs) (SOR/2016-313)|
|Department of Finance Canada||Order Amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Information Technology Agreement Expansion, 2016) (SOR/2016-197)|
|Department of Finance Canada||Ferry-Boats Remission Order, 2016 (SOR/2016-140)||
|Department of Finance Canada||Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Film and Video Productions, 2016) (SOR/2016-262)||
|Department of Finance Canada||Order Amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, 2016-2 (Agri-food Inputs) (SOR/2016-313)||
|Employment and Social Development Canada||Regulations Amending the Employment Insurance Regulations (SOR/2016-162)||
|Employment and Social Development Canada||Regulations Amending the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations and the Apprentice Loans Regulations (SOR/2016-199)||
|Employment and Social Development Canada||Regulations Amending the Employment Insurance Regulations and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations (SOR/2016-206)||
|Environment and Climate Change Canada||Multi-Sector Air Pollutants Regulations (SOR/2016-151)||
|Health Canada||Pest Control Products Fees and Charges Regulations (SOR/2017-9)||
|Natural Resources Canada||Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 (SOR/2016-311)||
|Department of Finance Canada||Order Amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Information Technology Agreement Expansion, 2016) (SOR/2016-197)||
|Employment and Social Development Canada||Regulations Amending the Employment Insurance Regulations (SOR/2016-314)||
|Employment and Social Development Canada (Labour Program)||Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Labour Code (SOR/2016-141)||
|Environment and Climate Change Canada||Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (SOR/2016-087)||
Table 1 Notes
Table 5 lists all significant regulatory proposals in the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year that included analysis of qualitative benefits and costs in addition to monetized and/or quantitative benefits and/or costs.
Appendix 2: detailed report on the One-for-One Rule for the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year
|Portfolio||Regulation||Net impact on regulatory stock|
|New regulatory titles that have administrative burden|
|Environment and Climate Change Canada||Multi-Sector Air Pollutants Regulations (SOR/2016-151)||1|
|Transport Canada||Prevention and Control of Fires on Line Works Regulations (SOR/2016-317)||1|
|Environment and Climate Change Canada||The Regulations Repealing the Vinyl Chloride Release Regulations, 1992 (SOR/2016-096) repealed the Vinyl Chloride Release Regulations, 1992||(1)|
|Environment and Climate Change Canada||Regulations Amending the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012 (SOR/2016-252) repealed:
|Innovation, Science and Economic Development||Regulations Repealing the Regulations Specifying Investigative Bodies (Miscellaneous Program) (SOR/2016-063) repealed the Regulations Specifying Investigative Bodies||(1)|
|Transport Canada||Order Repealing Certain Regulations Made Under the Railway Safety Act (SOR/2016-319) repealed:
|Total net impact on regulatory stock for the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year||(14)|
|Portfolio||Regulations||SOR number||Publication date||Exemption type|
|Department of Finance Canada||Regulations Amending the Artists’ Representatives (GST/HST) Regulations||SOR/2016-060||Tax or tax administration|
|Global Affairs Canada||Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations||SOR/2016-050||Emergencies / crisis situation|
|Global Affairs Canada||Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations||SOR/2016-051||Emergencies / crisis situation|
|Global Affairs Canada||Regulations Amending the Regulations the Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)||SOR/2016-278||Non-discretionary obligations|
|Global Affairs Canada||Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations||SOR/2016-304||Emergencies / crisis situation|
|Health Canada||Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations||SOR/2016-230||Non-discretionary obligations|
|National Revenue||Expiry of Sections 10 to 12 and 13 to 15 of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 Regulations||SOR/2016-155||Tax or tax administration|
|Public Safety Canada||Regulations Amending the Regulations Establishing a List of Entities||SOR/2016-320||Emergencies / crisis situation|
|Transport Canada||The Marine Liability and Information Return Regulations||SOR/2016-307||Non-discretionary obligations|
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the President of the Treasury Board, 2017,
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: