Annual Report for the 2024 to 2025 Fiscal Year: Federal Regulatory Management Initiatives

What is cost-benefit analysis?

In the regulatory context, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a structured approach to identifying and considering the economic, environmental and social effects of a regulatory proposal. CBA identifies and measures the positive and negative impacts of a regulatory proposal and any feasible alternative options so that decision makers can determine the best course of action. CBA monetizes, quantifies and qualitatively analyzes the direct and indirect costs and benefits of the regulatory proposal to determine the proposal’s overall benefit.

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
• workers
• businesses
• consumers
• other sectors of society

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 GIC and subsequent publication of approved final regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II

Analytical requirements

The analytical requirements for CBA as part of a RIAS are set out in the Policy on Cost‑Benefit Analysis, which was introduced on September 1, 2018, in support of the Cabinet Directive on Regulation. The policy requires both robust analysis and public transparency, including:

• reporting stakeholder consultations on CBA in the RIAS
• making the CBA available publicly

Regulatory proposals are categorized according to their expected level of impact, which is determined by the anticipated cost of the proposal:

• no-cost-impact regulatory proposals: proposals that have no identified costs
• low-cost-impact regulatory proposals: proposals that have average annual national costs of less than $1 million
• significant-cost-impact regulatory proposals: proposals that have $1 million or more in average annual national costs

The level of impact determines the degree of analysis and assessment that is required for a given regulatory proposal. This proportionate approach is consistent with regulatory best practices set out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Table 1 shows the minimum analytical requirements for each level of impact.

In this report, information on CBA covers GIC regulations only since they are subject to a formal challenge function and collective decision-making by Treasury Board, Part B. The information is limited to regulatory proposals that have a significant cost impact; since these proposals require that the majority of benefits and costs be monetized, the overall net impact can be described in economic terms more clearly than proposals that have low or no costs, which rely more on qualitative or quantified analysis. These three types of analysis are described in detail in this section.

Figures in this section are taken from the RIASs for regulations published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, in the 2024–25 fiscal year. To remove the effect of inflation, figures are expressed in 2024 dollars and, therefore, some vary from those published in the RIASs. This approach permits meaningful and consistent comparison of figures, regardless of the year in which regulatory impacts were originally measured.

Overview of benefits and costs of regulations

In the 2024–25 fiscal year, a total of 358 regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, compared with 277 that were published in the 2023–24 fiscal year. Of these 358 regulations in 2024–25:

• 236 were GIC regulations (65.9% of all regulations)
• 122 were non-GIC regulations, that is, regulations made by a minister or an independent regulatory authority (34.1% of all regulations)

Of the 236 GIC regulations (compared with 184 in the 2023–24 fiscal year):

• 207 had no cost impact or low-cost impact (87.7% of GIC regulations)
• 29 had significant cost impact (12.3% of GIC regulations)

Figure 1 provides an overview of regulations approved and published in the 2024–25 fiscal year.

Figure 1 - Text version

Figure 1 provides an overview of the regulations published in the 2024–25 fiscal year.

During this period, 122 non-Governor in Council regulations were published, and 236 Governor in Council regulations were published.

Of the 236 Governor in Council regulations, 207 were no-cost-impact or low-cost-impact regulations, and 29 were significant-cost-impact regulations

Of the 29 significant-cost-impact regulations, 21 included monetized costs and benefits, 7 included monetized costs only, and 1 did not include monetized costs or benefits.

Qualitative benefits and costs

The most basic element of any analysis of costs and benefits is a description of the expected impacts of the regulatory proposal. This description is based on a qualitative analysis and is used to:

• provide decision makers with an evidence-based understanding of the anticipated impacts of the regulation
• provide context for further analysis that is expressed in numerical or monetary terms

Qualitative analysis should be part of the CBA of all regulatory proposals, including those that have no cost impact or low-cost impact. Most proposals that have no cost impact or low-cost impact are based entirely or almost entirely on qualitative analysis; low-cost-impact proposals include information on both benefits and costs, and those that have no cost impacts would describe only the anticipated benefits.

The following are examples of qualitative impacts identified in significant-cost-impact regulations in the 2024–25 fiscal year:

• The Regulations Amending the Financial Consumer Protection Framework Regulations (SOR/2025-96) cap non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees at $10 and prohibit the imposition of NSF fees to accounts that have been charged an NSF fee within the last two business days and on overdrawn amounts of under $10. The Regulations will protect financial consumers by reducing the circumstances in which NSF fees are charged and putting a limit on the cost of an NSF fee when one is received.
• The Possession and Export of Elvers Regulations (SOR/2024-237) impose a licensing requirement to possess and export elver, including record-keeping requirements to enable the traceability of elvers in Canada, as well as the sealing and labelling of containers of elver for export. These measures are designed to disincentivize and reduce unlawful harvesting by making it harder to possess, sell and export unlawfully caught elver.
• The Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (RPAS – Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight and Other Operations) (SOR/2025-70) create a more flexible and responsive regulatory environment for remotely-piloted aircraft systems (RPAS). This is expected to lead to an increase in services provided to Canadians, drive the RPAS market forward in new ways and help it remain competitive in the global market.

Quantitative benefits and costs

Quantitative benefits and costs are those that are expressed as a quantity, for example:

• the number of recipients of a benefit
• the percentage reduction in pollution
• the amount of time saved

As is the case with qualitative information, quantitative benefits and costs can be used in two ways:

1. on their own, they can illustrate the expected magnitude of a proposal by providing measurable figures to decision makers
2. they can be used as a factor in developing cost estimates

Quantitative analysis is an element of nearly all regulatory proposals that have a significant cost impact. Such analysis provides key metrics on the frequency or number of instances of an activity and is essential for estimating benefits and costs. Quantitative analysis can also be used on its own to illustrate the overall impact of a proposal in non-monetary terms. Although quantitative analysis is not required for proposals that have no cost impact or low-cost impact, it is often included alongside qualitative information because it can be useful to decision makers.

The following are examples of quantified benefits and costs identified in significant-cost-impact regulations that were finalized in the 2024–25 fiscal year:

• The Regulations Amending the Canada Student Loans Regulations and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations (SOR/2024-210) expand the area of eligibility for the forgiveness of student loans for doctors and nurses to include all rural areas and communities with populations of 30,000 or fewer. The change in definition is expected to initially increase the availability of health care services for approximately 1.7 million Canadians living in newly eligible areas. It is expected that this measure will incentivize 935 doctors and nurses to provide health services to a rural or remote community over a 10-year period.
• The Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (School Buses) (SOR/2024-239) mandate that all newly manufactured school buses subject to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act be equipped with exterior perimeter visibility systems and decal warning labels for the installation of infraction camera systems. It is estimated that this requirement will reduce an estimated 6 fatalities, 19 major injuries, and 133 minor injuries in Canada between 2027 and 2036.
• The Reduction in the Release of Volatile Organic Compounds (Storage and Loading of Volatile Petroleum Liquids) Regulations (SOR/2025-88) require petroleum liquid storage tanks and loading racks to be equipped with emissions control equipment. Between 2025 and 2045, these measures will reduce fugitive volatile organic compound releases by approximately 488 kilotonnes and methane emissions by approximately 7.8 kilotonnes.

Monetized benefits and costs

Monetized benefits and costs are those that are expressed in a currency amount, such as dollars, using an approach that considers both the value of an impact and when it occurs.^{Footnote 3}

An analysis of monetized costs and benefits is required for all regulatory proposals that have a significant cost impact. If the benefits or costs cannot be monetized, a rigorous qualitative analysis of the costs or benefits of the proposed regulation is required, and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) must be satisfied that there are legitimate obstacles to monetizing the impacts. In practice, most regulatory proposals that have significant cost impacts include both monetized benefits and costs as part of the analysis.

For costs and benefits 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)
• equal when they occur (discounting)

Of the 29 regulations that have significant cost impacts that were finalized in the 2024–25 fiscal year, 28 had monetized impacts, representing 10.2% of GIC regulations. For descriptions of detailed benefits and costs by regulation, see Appendix A.

Of the 29 regulations that have significant cost impacts:

• 21 had monetized benefits and costs
• 7 had monetized costs only
• 1 did not fully monetize benefits or costs because it was exempted from the requirements of the Cabinet Directive on Regulation^{Footnote 4}

Figure 2 - Text version

Figure 2 provides an overview of the significant-cost-impact regulations published in the 2024–25 fiscal year based on the level of analysis included.

During this period, 29 significant-cost-impact regulations were published.

Of the 29 significant-cost-impact regulations, 21 included monetized costs and benefits, 7 included monetized costs only, and 1 did not fully monetize costs and benefits.

For the 21 regulations that have significant cost impacts that had monetized estimates of both benefits and costs, expressed as total present value (see Figure 2):^{Footnote 5}

• total benefits were $76,189,717,836
• total costs were $50,391,041,510
• net benefits were $25,798,676,326

Figure 3 - Text version

Figure 3 depicts the benefits and costs of significant-cost-impact regulations published in the 2024–25 fiscal year.

The benefits associated with significant-cost-impact regulations totalled $76.2 billion.

The costs associated with significant-cost-impact regulations totalled $50.4 billion.

The difference between the benefits and the costs is a net benefit of $25.8 billion.

The following three significant-cost-impact regulatory proposals had the greatest net benefit of all proposals that were finalized in the 2024–25 fiscal year and that had monetized benefits and costs:

• The Clean Electricity Regulations (SOR/2024-263) prohibit greenhouse gas emissions above an annual emissions limit for electricity generating units, based on each unit’s electricity generation capacity. The Regulations include compliance flexibility mechanisms to limit negative impacts on grid stability or electricity prices. It is estimated that these measures will generate a net benefit of $14,556,000,000 between 2024 and 2050.
• The Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Designated Learning Institutions) (SOR/2024-219) allow Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to verify that students are complying with their study permit conditions and allow it to take action against institutions that do not comply with their obligations. In addition, the changes raise the maximum number of hours that international students may work off campus from 20 to 24, thus helping offset the cost of living in Canada. The estimated net benefit of these regulatory amendments is expected to be $6,306,662,553 between 2024 and 2033.
• The Regulations Amending the Products Containing Mercury Regulations (SOR/2024-109) lower the risk of mercury releases into the environment from products in Canada, thereby enabling Canada to meet international requirements for mercury-containing products and to phase out additional mercury-added products. The amendments further align the regulations with other international initiatives, including requirements in the European Union and certain United States of America (U.S.) states. In total, the changes will result in an estimated net benefit of $5,268,368,280 between 2026 and 2035.

The purpose of CBA is to determine whether the expected benefits of a proposal are greater than the expected costs. This determination, however, is not based entirely on monetized benefits and costs. CBAs frequently include quantitative and qualitative analysis, in addition to monetized analysis, and the overall analysis must consider this broader range of evidence. In the 2024–25 fiscal year:

• Ten regulations with a significant cost impact had monetized costs that were greater than monetized benefits, which typically indicates that some benefits, such as broader societal benefits, could not be monetized and were stated qualitatively alongside benefits that were monetized.
• Similarly, three regulations with a significant cost impact had monetized costs that were equal to monetized benefits. This result is sometimes associated with a direct transfer from one party to another, although it can also indicate that a portion of the impacts could be monetized but others were stated qualitatively.

For detailed benefits and costs by regulation, see Appendix A.

The one-for-one rule

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, which was instituted in the 2012–13 fiscal year, seeks to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.

Administrative burden includes:

• planning, collecting, processing and reporting of information
• completing forms
• retaining data required by the federal government to comply with a regulation

Under the rule, when a new or amended regulation increases the administrative burden on businesses, the cost of this burden must be offset through other regulatory changes. 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 made or approved by the GIC or a minister that impose new administrative burden on business, including those with low-cost impacts and significant cost impacts. Under the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, the Treasury Board can exempt three categories of regulations from the requirement to offset burden and regulatory titles:

1. regulations related to tax or tax administration
2. 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)
3. regulations made in response to emergency, unique or exceptional circumstances, including 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 regulators’ estimates of administrative burden costs or savings to business
• the number of regulations created or removed

The Red Tape Reduction Regulations require that dollar values used in estimating administrative burden be expressed in 2012 dollars and discounted to 2012 using a 7% discount rate. This requirement ensures 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 adjusted in this way 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 enshrined the existing policy requirement for the one-for-one rule in law. Section 9 of the Red Tape Reduction Act requires that the President of the Treasury Board prepare and make public an annual report on the application of the rule.

The Red Tape Reduction Regulations state that the following must be included in the annual report:

• a summary of the increases and decreases in the cost of administrative burden that results from regulatory changes that are made in accordance with section 5 of the Act within the 12‑month period ending on March 31 of the year in which the report is made public
• the number of regulations that are amended or repealed as a result of regulatory changes that are made in accordance with section 5 of the Act within that 12‑month period

Key findings on the implementation of the one-for-one rule

The main findings on changes in administrative burden and the overall number of regulations for the 2024–25 fiscal year are as follows:

• system-wide, the federal government remains in compliance with the requirement in the Red Tape Reduction Act to offset administrative burden and titles within 24 months
• $10,071,186 more in annual net administrative burden was removed in the 2024–25 fiscal year than was introduced; since the 2012–13 fiscal year, annual net burden has been reduced by approximately $91.6 million^{Footnote 6}
• 38 more regulatory titles were taken off the books than were added, with a total net reduction of 276 titles since the 2012–13 fiscal year

A detailed report on regulations that had implications under the one-for-one rule is in Appendix B.

Under the one-for-one rule, regulatory changes in the 2024–25 fiscal year resulted in the following increases and decreases in the cost of administrative burden on businesses:

• $1,790,083 of new burden introduced
• $11,861,269 of existing burden removed
• net decrease of $10,071,186 of burden

The rule allows individual portfolios 24 months to offset any new burden introduced. As well, portfolios are allowed to bank burden reductions for future offsets within that portfolio. As a result, some of the $1,790,083 of new burden introduced in the 2024–25 fiscal year was immediately offset by previously removed burden:

• $1,296,262 of new burden was offset immediately by previously removed burden
• $493,821 of new burden had not yet been offset as of March 31, 2025, but is within the 24-month reconciliation period

Figure 4 - Text version

Figure 4 depicts the amount of administrative burden on business that was introduced in 2024–25 and the amounts that have been offset already by removing existing burden.

$1,790,083 of new burden was introduced in the 2024–25 fiscal year.

$1,296,262 of the new administrative burden introduced was offset immediately by previously removed burden.

$493,821 of the new administrative burden introduced had not yet been offset as of March 31, 2025.

The changes introduced by the following three regulations represented the largest changes in administrative burden in the 2024–25 fiscal year:

• The Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Concerning Cannabis (Streamlining of Requirements) (SOR/2025-43) reduce regulatory burden and support diversity and competition in the legal cannabis market while maintaining the Cannabis Act’s public health and public safety objectives. The amendments reduce or remove many existing record-keeping and reporting requirements across five priority areas – licensing, personnel and physical security, production, packaging and labelling, and record-keeping and reporting – resulting in a reduction of $7,759,263 in annualized administrative burden on business.
• The Regulations Amending Schedule 2 to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations (SOR/2025-107) cease the application of the fuel charge by setting the applicable charge rates in Schedule 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to zero. The Regulations also remove specific administrative obligations, such as requirements to file and to register under Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This measure will result in an annualized administrative cost savings of $1,756,318, reflecting savings due to ceasing the filing requirements for about 13,000 registrants.
• The Biocides Regulations (SOR/2024-110) introduce a modern regulatory framework for biocides, providing Canadians with more timely access to safe, effective and high-quality products while reducing burden. Under the new framework, authorization holders will no longer be required to submit an annual summary report to the regulator, nor to renew their registration for surface sanitizers every five years. The amendment will result in an annual net reduction of $1,581,796 in administrative burden on authorization holders.

Under the one-for-one rule, regulatory changes in the 2024–25 fiscal year resulted in the following increases and decreases in the stock of federal regulations:

• five new regulatory titles imposing administrative burden on business were introduced
• 25 regulatory titles were repealed
• 24 existing titles were repealed and replaced with six new titles

Although eleven new titles were introduced over the course of the year, the rule allows individual portfolios 24 months to offset these titles. As is the case with administrative burden, portfolios are allowed to bank title repeals for future offsets within the portfolio. As a result, all but one of these new titles have already been offset:

• ten were offset immediately by previously removed titles
• one was not yet offset as of March 31, 2025, but is within the 24-month reconciliation period

Figure 5 - Text version

Figure 5 depicts the number of new regulatory titles imposing administrative burden on business that were introduced in 2024–25 and the number of these titles that have been offset already by repealing existing regulatory titles.

11 new regulatory titles introducing administrative burden on business were introduced in 2024–25.

10 of these titles were offset immediately by previously repealed titles.

1 of the new titles had not yet been offset as of March 31, 2025.

The Treasury Board is responsible for ensuring compliance with the one-for-one rule across government and for addressing situations of non-compliance. System-wide, the federal government remains in compliance with the requirement in the Red Tape Reduction Act to offset new administrative burden and titles within 24 months.

TBS supports the Treasury Board in its oversight function by tracking offsetting requirements by portfolio. As of March 31, 2025, three portfolios were in non-compliance with the requirement to offset burden and/or titles. Officials from TBS and the organizations in deficit situations continue to work together to identify opportunities to achieve these outstanding offsets. A detailed list of burden and titles that are past the 24-month offset period is in Appendix B.

In the 2024–25 fiscal year, the Treasury Board approved the exemption of 7 regulations from the requirement to offset burden and titles:

• two were related to tax and tax administration
• five were related to non-discretionary obligations
• none was related to emergency, unique or exceptional circumstances

The Administrative Burden Baseline

The Administrative Burden Baseline (ABB) provides Canadians with a count of the total number of administrative requirements on businesses in all federal regulations (GIC, ministerial and independent regulatory authorities) and associated forms.

For the purposes of the ABB, an administrative requirement is a compulsion, obligation, demand or prohibition placed on a business, its activities or its operations through a GIC or non-GIC regulation. A requirement may also be thought of as any obligation that a business must satisfy to avoid penalties or delays. Regulatory requirements generally use directive words or phrases such as “shall,” “must” and “is to,” and the ABB counts these references in the regulatory text or other documents such as forms or program materials that explain obligations of the regulated party.

The ABB does not consider the costs that businesses incur when fulfilling administrative requirements; the cost impacts of these requirements are instead calculated as part of the CBA and one-for-one rule analysis in individual regulatory proposals. As a result, an increase or decrease in the ABB count does not necessarily indicate a change in the overall burden on business.

The ABB was first publicly reported on in September 2014, providing a baseline count of administrative requirements by regulator. Since then, regulators continue to:

• count their administrative requirements occurring from July 1 to June 30 each year
• publicly post updates to their ABB count by September 30 each year

Key findings on the Administrative Burden Baseline

The baseline provides Canadians with information on 38 regulators that are responsible for GIC and non-GIC regulations that were identified as containing administrative requirements on business when the ABB was initiated in 2014.^{Footnote 7}

As of June 30, 2024:

• the total number of administrative requirements was 149,312, a decrease of 89 (or 0.06%) from the 2023 count of 149,401
• there were 601 regulations identified by regulators as having administrative requirements, a decrease of 4 (or 0.66%) from the 2023 figure of 605; for reference, there are approximately 3,000 federal regulations currently in place
• the average number of administrative requirements per regulation was 248.4, an increase of 1.5 (or 0.7%) from the 2023 average of 246.9

The top three changes in the ABB in 2024 were:

• The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s count decreased by 710 requirements. This reduction results from several measures, including:
  • 71 fewer administrative requirements (net) related to the repeal of the previous Feeds Regulations, 1983 and its replacement with the new modernized Feeds Regulations, 2024
  • the replacement and revision of forms that removed 399 requirements
  • the removal from the count of 242 requirements related to a technical standard that been counted previously but whose requirements were ultimately determined to be compliance-focused and not administrative in nature
• Environment and Climate Change Canada’s count increased by 347 requirements resulting from amendments to the Output-Based Pricing System Regulations, the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations, and the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations
• The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s count increased by 140, relating mainly to forms that were developed or updated to meet regulatory requirements:
  • The form “REGDOC-2.5.6: Design of Rooms Where Unsealed Nuclear Substances Are Used” was revised, resulting in the replacement of the existing form with seven new forms (one for each room classification)
  • The addition of five Annual Compliance Report (ACR) forms related to Class II nuclear facilities and prescribed equipment, which were previously omitted from the ABB count by error, have now been included

This year’s ABB count of 149,312 requirements was 19,452 greater than initial baseline count in 2014, an overall increase of approximately 15%. As noted above, this increase does not necessarily indicate an increase in the administrative costs imposed on businesses.

Figure 7 - Text version

Figure 7 provides the annual government-wide Administrative Burden Baseline counts from the June 30, 2014, baseline count to the most recent count as of June 30, 2024.

• The 2014 baseline count was 129,860 requirements.
• The 2015 update was 131,754 requirements.
• The 2016 update was 136,579 requirements.
• The 2017 update was 136,121 requirements.
• The 2018 update was 136,379 requirements.
• The 2019 update was 132,483 requirements.
• The 2020 update was 136,956 requirements.
• The 2021 update was 150,569 requirements.
• The 2022 update was 148,770 requirements.
• The 2023 update was 149,401 requirements.
• The 2024 update was 149,312 requirements.

A detailed summary of the ABB count for 2024 and for previous years can be found in Appendix C.

Enhancing trade through regulatory cooperation

In partnership with federal regulators, TBS worked with provinces, territories and foreign jurisdictions to reduce unnecessary regulatory barriers to trade and competitiveness.

Mutual recognition pilot

In September 2024, the Canadian Free Trade Agreement’s (CFTA) Committee on Internal Trade (CIT) launched a pilot project in the trucking sector to reduce internal trade barriers and ease the movement of goods across Canada. All 14 Canadian jurisdictions are participating to mutually recognize certain trucking regulations (for example, signage requirements for oversized vehicles that vary by province) while maintaining safety standards.

Canada / European Union Regulatory Cooperation Forum

In April 2024, Canada hosted the sixth annual meeting of the Canada-European Union (EU) Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) in Ottawa. Regulators from Canada and the EU provided updates on their joint work streams under the RCF, including on:

• animal welfare
• consumer product safety
• pediatric medicines

Following the annual meeting, the RCF held a stakeholder debriefing. The co-chairs shared updates on the RCF’s activities and outcomes with over 60 stakeholders from Canada and the EU, including representatives from businesses, trade associations, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions and the public service.

Canada / U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council

In spring and summer 2024, the President of the Treasury Board also hosted a series of domestic and international round tables with Canadian and U.S. business leaders, industry representatives and associations (Canada–United States Regulatory Cooperation Council). These discussions focused on exploring opportunities for regulatory cooperation between Canada and the U.S. to address barriers to trade and support economic growth. Meetings were held in cities across Canada, as well as in Chicago and Washington.

Overall, the President of the Treasury Board spoke with 83 Canadian and U.S. stakeholders, who noted over 250+ bilateral irritants related to transportation, borders, health and food safety, agriculture, and more. These irritants were shared with Canadian regulators and U.S. counterparts for assessment.

Figure 8 - Text version

Figure 8 shows the distribution of stakeholders’ roundtable submissions across different areas of interest. Horizontal bars represent the number of submissions, with counts along the x-axis and areas of interest on the y-axis.

From top to bottom, the areas of interest most frequently mentioned were:

• 28 submissions for Transportation
• 21 submissions for Borders
• 20 submissions for Health and Food Safety
• 15 submissions for Agriculture
• 12 submissions for Chemicals
• 9 submissions for Miscellaneous
• 8 submissions for Trade
• 7 submissions for Natural Resources
• 5 submissions for Financial
• 5 submissions for Labour
• 3 submissions for Safety and Security
• 2 submissions for Energy
• 2 submissions for Manufacturing
• 2 submissions for Marine

Note: This horizontal bar chart displays the number of stakeholders who submitted an issue related to each area of interest. The y-axis lists the areas of interest, and the x-axis displays the count of unique stakeholders for each category. Each stakeholder is counted once per area of interest, even if they submitted multiple issues related to that category. The chart indicates that Transportation has the highest count of unique stakeholders, followed by Borders and Health and Food Safety.

The President of the Treasury Board committed to ongoing engagement with Canadian stakeholders and regulators, as well as U.S. colleagues, to explore potential opportunities for bilateral regulatory cooperation.

Informed by the round tables, senior officials from TBS and the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) co-chaired a meeting of the Canada–U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) in September 2024 where Canadian and U.S. regulators:

• finalized the completion of 19 RCC work plans
• agreed to the continuation of 4 existing work plans
• discussed possible new areas for collaboration, including agriculture, transportation and auto manufacturing

On the margins of that meeting, the President of the Treasury Board and the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) met with stakeholders from both countries to discuss progress on RCC initiatives. They highlighted the importance and value of regulatory cooperation, transparency and collaboration. Both leaders committed to identifying opportunities for future cooperation.

Enabling innovation

The Centre for Regulatory Innovation (the Centre) helps federal regulators identify and overcome barriers to regulatory innovation. It provides advice, funding and tools, and encourages collaboration to improve regulations, support innovation and boost economic growth. Funded projects usually run over several years and provide valuable insights that help regulators make better decisions.

Regulatory reviews

TBS advanced the third round of Regulatory Reviews, focusing on the blue economy and supply chains. The Blue Economy Regulatory Review looked at regulatory and operational challenges and identified ways to support responsible growth in ocean-based industries.

The Blue Economy Regulatory Roadmap was completed and published online in June 2024, outlining specific actions to help communities and businesses that rely on the ocean economy to seize new opportunities, across five key themes:

• marine renewable energy and environmental protection
• marine spatial planning
• marine autonomous surface ships
• ocean technology
• sustainable fishing gear and practices

TBS continued work on the Supply Chain Regulatory Review, which aims to strengthen Canada’s supply chains through smarter regulation. TBS worked with departments and agencies to review stakeholder input from a consultation held in winter 2024 and develop potential actions.

In addition, departments continued to implement initiatives from the first two rounds of Regulatory Reviews, further contributing to reducing regulatory barriers in the system. As of winter 2025, about 60% of those initiatives have been completed, including 70% from Round 1 and nearly 40% from Round 2.

These efforts are reducing regulatory barriers and modernizing key sectors such as health and transportation. For example, Health Canada amended regulations to update recall requirements, which clarifies responsibilities for industry stakeholders and enhances international alignment, while Transport Canada uses an advanced analytics system to assess the risk of inbound air cargo shipments and support the security of commercial aviation.

External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness

The External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness (EACRC) submitted its Final Advice Letter to the President of the Treasury Board in June 2024.

In it, the EACRC made two key recommendations:

• Make regulatory measurement a government-wide priority, with an early emphasis on a digitized inventory of regulatory requirements that is searchable, can be used by any department, is accessible to Canadians, and is easy to use
• Maintain strong avenues for external advice

The letter also included suggestions to strengthen the Cabinet Directive on Regulation and called for regular reviews of existing regulations to keep them relevant and effective.

Over the course of its mandate, EACRC provided nine formal pieces of advice and called for the government to prioritize regulatory excellence, which “serves the public interest by promoting strong protections while minimizing unnecessary burdens that can limit economic opportunities.” The EACRC’s advice has informed the government’s continued efforts to improve the regulatory system and reduce regulatory burden for Canadians and businesses. For example, TBS is:

• leading efforts to reduce red tape and support economic growth, while maintaining high standards for health, safety, security and the environment through the Red Tape Reduction Office and a Government of Canada Red Tape Review across the federal regulatory system
• partnering with the Community of Federal Regulators to offer training that supports regulatory excellence, including building knowledge of new technologies that can help regulators work more efficiently and improve regulatory outcomes for Canadians and business
• supporting federal partners in the development of digital tools that will improve regulatory measurement and make it easier to identify duplication and overlap across regulations

Regulatory excellence

The committee stated in their letter that: “Regulatory excellence serves the public interest by promoting strong protections while minimizing unnecessary burden that can limit economic opportunities”. The committee also included the Regulatory Excellence diagram to help illustrate their perspective.

Figure 9 - Text version

Figure 9 consists of a figure that illustrates how regulatory excellence is the result of strong protection and minimizing unnecessary burden.

At the top of the figure is a heading that reads, “Regulatory Excellence.” Below this heading are two phrases that appear on one line, separated by a “plus” symbol. The two phrases are “Strong protection” and “Minimizing unnecessary burden.”

Below the heading and two phrases is an illustration of four equally sized quadrants, created by a vertical axis intersecting with a horizontal axis at the midpoint of each axis.

The top point of the vertical axis shows an arrow pointing upward. The top point of this axis is labelled “Stronger protection.” The bottom point of this axis is labelled “Weaker protection.”

The left point of the horizontal axis has a label that reads, “Lower burden.” The right point of this axis shows an arrow pointing right. The right point of this axis is labelled “Higher burden.”

The top left quadrant is labelled “High protection with minimal unnecessary regulatory burden.” This quadrant also contains a star to indicate that the conditions of high protection with minimal unnecessary regulatory burden are the most desirable.

The top right quadrant is labelled “High protection with unnecessary drag on productivity.”

The lower left quadrant is labelled “Inadequate protection and low regulatory burden.”

The bottom right quadrant is labelled “Inadequate protection and unnecessary drag on productivity.”