Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 160, Number 12: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part II)

March 21, 2026

Statutory authority
Aeronautics Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: Transport Canada (TC) regulates the identification and registration of aircraft and maintains the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register (CCAR), which contains information about all registered Canadian aircraft. Since its inception, Canada’s aircraft registration program has evolved faster than the regulations governing its implementation could keep pace with. Over time, certain rules of conduct have become unclear, outdated, or simply redundant and therefore require clarification, updating and/or repeal. Similarly, as a user-pay service for which the prescribed fee schedule has not changed since 1996, taxpayers have borne an increasingly higher proportion of the cost of the registration services delivered mostly (but not exclusively) for the benefit of aircraft owners and operators.

Description: The proposed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part II) [the proposed Regulations] would make approximately 70 amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) to clarify the rules governing assignment of marks and registration of aircraft by clarifying, updating or repealing, as appropriate, perceived ambiguous, outdated or obsolete provisions to reflect current practices. The proposed Regulations would also implement an updated fee regime that would aim to balance the cost of aircraft registration services more equitably between aircraft owners and taxpayers. Fees for certain services would be removed while others would be added or increased. The proposed fee changes are one-time fees and minimal relative to the cost of acquiring and operating an aircraft.

Rationale: The proposed Regulations would enhance the clarity, interpretation, and enforceability of the CARs while also minimizing the cost imbalance between beneficiaries of registration services and the taxpayer. The proposed changes would support aircraft registration by enabling improvements and modernization of rules, processes and services that would benefit aircraft owners and operators and Canadians. Extensive consultations were undertaken to seek stakeholder feedback on the proposed amendments to the CARs, including the new fees for aircraft registration services. Overall, there were no significant concerns raised with the proposed amendments.

The total cost of the proposed Regulations is estimated to be $6.90 million (present value in 2026 Canadian dollars, discounted to the first period of 2026 at a 7% discount rate) for a 10-year period between 2026 and 2035. Of this total cost, $6.83 million would be assumed by Canadian aircraft owners, operators and manufacturers due to the amended service fees, $0.05 million would be associated with the removal of the service fee for amendments to information on a Certificate of Registration (CoR), and $0.02 million would be associated with the removal of the service fee to retrieve aircraft historical information. Both costs associated with fee removals would be assumed by the Government of Canada.

The proposed Regulations would also benefit Canadian taxpayers, as the updated service fees would rebalance the cost of administering the aircraft registration program from Canadian taxpayers (represented by TC) to service users. The total monetized benefit is estimated to be $7.48 million for the same period.

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the proposed Regulations would impact 4 744 small businesses. The proposed amendments are expected to result in a total net cost to small businesses of $1.71 million, or an annualized value of $0.23 million. Using the methodology developed in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, it is estimated that the annualized administrative savings would be $9,262 (present value in 2012 dollars, discounted to the base year of 2012 at a discount rate of 7% for the 10-year period between 2026 and 2035).

Issues

Over the years, several issues and concerns have been identified through ongoing internal assessments and reviews, industry feedback and specific engagement with external stakeholders and subject matter experts. With respect to aircraft registration, these issues and concerns range from minor irritants, such as discrepancies between English and French versions of a provision in the CARs, to more substantive matters, such as clarifying the duration of use of an interim CoR to ensure consistent usability when the owner of a Canadian aircraft changes. The range of issues related to Part II of the CARs falls into five categories:

(a) Perceived ambiguous definitions

Terms such as “issuance” of a registration mark are misleading and redundant, while other terminology such as “special” (used to distinguish selected from randomly assigned marks) is imprecise and open to inconsistent interpretation. Similarly, “launch weight” is only used in the definition of “hang glider”, but the term launch weight is often confused with “maximum take-off weight”, which is a concept that does not apply to non-powered aircraft like a hang glider. As well, the definition of “registration mark” in the French version of the CARS may misconstrue a mark as evidence of registration rather than as a method of identification.

(b) Unclear aircraft identification requirements

In general, the identity of an aircraft is established by its fuselage, i.e. the main body of an aircraft, rather than by its identification (ID) plate. That said, the make, model and serial number required to be displayed on aircraft ID plates are sometimes absent on aircraft that are imported into Canada. From the way the related provisions of the CARs are currently written, it is often unclear that the new owner must apply for authorization from the Minister of Transport to update the plate information to be compliant with the CARs. The provision is often misread to mean that an imported aircraft must simply have an ID plate and not an ID plate that displays the make, model and serial number of the aircraft.

The CARs also do not provide any flexibility to vary the location of an ID plate even on older vintage aircraft that may have undergone significant restoration and for which compliance with the existing regulations may be onerous. The CARs currently require that an ID plate for an aircraft be attached to the structure of the aircraft where it is visible. This provision is intended to apply to new aircraft, but this is not clear enough in the CARs, and often owners of older and vintage aircraft attempt to meet this requirement by relocating authorized replacement ID plates away from their original mounting location. The CARs currently lack a clear prohibition against attaching or removing an ID plate without authorization. This could be perceived as permission to swap ID plates, especially for rebuilt or restored aircraft, or to identify two aeronautical products with the same make, model, and serial number.

(c) Aircraft registration and leasing —Various Issues

Potential gaps in rules in relation to assignment and display of marks

TC’s online mark reservation system allows owners of new ultra-light aeroplane (i.e. a specific type of lightweight fixed-wing aircraft with one or two seats) to reserve marks usually assigned to other categories of aircraft. Currently, it is common practice to assign a particular formatted mark of “C-I” to an ultra-light aeroplane, although this practice is not explicitly outlined in the CARs. The proper identification of an aircraft through registration allows TC to communicate safety and maintenance information to its owners and facilitates communication with air traffic controllers and other pilots while in operation. It is also not explicit in the CARs that hang gliders, parachutes and unoccupied free balloons are not assigned registration marks and are not required to be registered in Canada. The current requirements do not make it obvious that these aircraft are not registered and should not be inspected for registration marks or be the subject of compliance activities targeting registration requirements. As currently written, the relevant provision (subsection 200.02(2)) of the CARs is confusing and may be prone to misinterpretation. As well, there is no clear prohibition against displaying a mark that has not been assigned to an aircraft.

Misalignment with standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), Annex 7, prohibits the assignment of certain sequences of letters to an aircraft as its registration mark. A registration mark (e.g. SOS) could be confused with distress or other similar urgent signals when used in aviation communications. While Canada’s key trading partners, such as the United States (U.S.), the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (U.K.), are in alignment with ICAO, the CARs do not currently place similar restrictions on the issuance of such marks. Similarly, the CARs do not specify the conditions for the issuance of a certificate of deregistration when an aircraft is no longer registered in Canada. This is a new ICAO SARP (Standard 7.9.1) that entered into effect in November 2023, which requires Member States to issue a Certificate of Deregistration when an aircraft is duly removed from the national aircraft registry and the CoR is cancelled. While TC currently issues a notification of deregistration in the format conforming with ICAO’s requirement, this practice is not codified, neither does legal authority exist under the CARs for the Minister to issue the Certificate of Deregistration.

Restrictive and inflexible requirements for state and manufacturer-operated aircraft

The CARs do not currently allow police forces to operate unmarked aircraft, other than through the issuing of a formal exemption from the requirement to display registration marks. This means that policing agencies must apply for an exemption from certain provisions of the CARs to undertake covert flight operations. Issuing recurrent exemptions to authorize policing agencies to operate their aircraft without registration marks during law enforcement operations places an unnecessary ongoing administrative burden on both TC and law enforcement authorities.

Further, while aircraft manufacturers and dealers in the U.S. are permitted, via a special authorization by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to operate cross-border flights into Canada for purposes such as testing, completing production or customer acceptance/delivery, Canadian manufacturers do not have the privilege of cross-border flights for similar purposes under the CARs. Currently, a Canadian manufacturer operating an aircraft for testing, production completion, customer acceptance or export purposes is restricted to flights within Canada. This requirement is inflexible and unnecessarily restrictive, since some Canadian manufacturers undertake their production in both Canada and in the U.S., often beginning the process in one country and completing it in the other.

Perceived lack of clarity in certain leasing provisions

For a leased aircraft under Subpart 203 of the CARs, the Minister is currently required to specify operating conditions at the time of the issuance of a lease authorization. The conditions which govern the safe operation of an aircraft are already prescribed in the CARs and do not always need to be restated at the time of leasing or on the lease authorization.

Prior to 2000, Subpart 203 limited aircraft leasing arrangements to Canadian aircraft operated under Part IV (Personnel Licensing and Training) or Part VII (Commercial Air Services) of the CARs. In 2000, an amendment to the CARs came into force, which allowed private operators (i.e. operating under Subpart 604) to enter into a leasing arrangement. At that time, subsection 203.02(2), which stipulates that this Subpart does not apply in respect of the operation of a private aircraft, should have been removed. While this did not prevent private operators from entering into leasing arrangements since 2000, maintaining the provision creates ambiguities.

(d) Outdated service fees

The aircraft registration service fees in the CARs came into effect in 1996 and have not been revised since. These fees have fallen behind program costs and do not reflect the increasing costs to provide the services. As a result, the Canadian taxpayer bears a disproportionately higher share (77% as of 2024) of the costs, while aircraft owners and operators who benefit the most from the services continue to bear a significantly smaller portion of program costs from year to year. TC is seeking to address this imbalance by having the main beneficiaries of the services (i.e. aircraft owners and operators) contribute more towards the cost of delivering the services.

(e) Housekeeping changes

Finally, requirements under Part II of the CARs relating to certain topics (such as aircraft exempt from registration or conditions of issue for CoRs) are often found under various sections of the CARs, making it harder to follow than if related requirements were consolidated under the same provision. Housekeeping changes would also include the repeal of provisions that have become obsolete or redundant as a result of the impact of technological advances or changing program practices. For instance, CoRs are no longer issued in paper format due to the shift to electronic and digital forms of documentation for various Canadian aviation documents (CADs). It is no longer reasonable to therefore request the return of a physical document upon suspension or cancellation of the CoR. Finally, under this theme, certain record-keeping terminology would also be harmonized. For example, foreign-owned Canadian entities are currently required to keep records of aircraft usage by recording “air time” under subsections 605.96(1) and (2) and “flight time” under subsection 202.15(3). From TC’s perspective, the requirement to record both the time of travel from departure to arrival (flight time) and the time the aircraft is actually in the air (air time) is unnecessary and only adds undue burden to the operator.

Background

Introduced in 1996, the CARs outline the regulatory requirements that govern civil aviation in Canada. The CARs touch on all aspects of aviation including, but not limited to, aircraft identification and registration, airport operations, private and commercial operations, pilot training and licensing, and air navigation services. Part I of the CARs contains general provisions, including administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) and service fee schedules, and Part II deals with rules of conduct governing the identification and registration of Canadian aircraft and the operation of a leased aircraft by a non-registered owner (leasing). Over the years, the CARs have been amended to address aviation safety matters, with a focus on areas of greatest risks. In 2017–2018, TC launched an internal Regulatory Review Initiative with the objective of modernizing the CARs and its associated standards. As part of the initiative, TC compiled a list of 1 900 irritants raised over the years through various internal and external consultations with stakeholders. The irritants have been grouped based on themes, and several regulatory proposals have been brought forward under this initiative. The current proposal falls under the theme of “aircraft identification and registration and operation of a leased aircraft by a non-registered owner”. The irritants being addressed are the result of a review by a joint TC/industry task team of issues and concerns pertaining to Part II of the CARs as well as those solicited during the summer of 2019 through TC’s “Let’s Talk Transportation” online platform.

TC’s Civil Aviation Directorate administers the aircraft registration program in Canada. The program includes maintaining the CCAR, which keeps records on Canadian-registered commercial, private and state aircraft. Aircraft registration activities support the Minister of Transport’s powers and responsibilities under the Aeronautics Act and in fulfillment of Canada’s obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) to register aircraft and require the display of national registration marks. In Canada, an individual who is licenced to operate an aircraft may only do so if that aircraft is registered either in Canada, in a state that is a party to the Chicago Convention, or in a foreign state that has an agreement in force with Canada.

Aircraft registration helps to promote the safety of the individuals aboard that aircraft, the safety of other users of the airspace as well as the safety of individuals and property on the ground through identification and communication with aircraft owners. Aircraft registration facilitates communication between TC and the operator of the aircraft, such as communicating mandatory maintenance or inspection requirements, and component replacement. The registration mark identifies the aircraft to support communications between the aircraft, air traffic control and with other pilots. The mark also assists in search and rescue activities in cases of emergencies or accidents.

The fees for registration services have not changed over the last 20 years and do not reflect the real cost of delivering these services to industry. Currently, aircraft registration fees recover less than a quarter (23%) of the cost to provide the services to recipients. Without adjustments to the fees, the proportion of the cost borne by the taxpayer has increased over time and will continue to put increasing pressure on the funding of the program.

Objective

The objectives of the regulatory proposal are to

Description

The proposed amendments to the CARs are described in this section, grouped by issue category.

Clarification of perceived ambiguous definitions

Updating outdated aircraft identification provisions

Clarification of certain aircraft registration and leasing requirements

Revising fees and administrative monetary penalties for aircraft registration services

Table I shows a comparison between existing fees, proposed fee changes and cost recovery rates (based on historical service data) for each type of service included in the proposed Regulations.

Table I: Comparison of existing and proposed service fees by type of service
Type of Service New/Existing Current Charge Proposed Charge Average Annual # of Transactions (2021–2024) Cost Recovery Rate
Reserve a registration mark Existing $45 $140 381 41%
Reserve a particular registration mark Existing $140 $270 403 80%
Renew a registration mark reservation before it expires New $45 or $140  table 1 note * $70 471 28%
Authorize an alternate registration mark size, location or variance from the specifications for registration marks New N/A $500 3 46%
Authorize the operation of an aircraft in Canada that does not display a registration mark New N/A $200 5 59%
Change registration mark after the issuance of continuing registration New N/A $650 61 59%
Issue a provisional certificate of registration Existing $65 $200 53 59%
Provide a blank interim certificate of registration New N/A $109 30 65%
Issue an initial continuing certificate of registration Existing $110 $450 674 59%
Issue a continuing certificate of registration for a transfer of custody and control Existing $110 $400 2 476 79%

Table 1 note(s)

Table 1 note *

This service is currently charged under Reservation of a registration mark but will be charged separately under the proposed Regulations.

Return to table 1 note * referrer

Housekeeping changes

Regulatory development

Consultation

Preliminary consultations with stakeholders were undertaken in two phases between May 2019 and August 2022. Phase 1 involved a public consultation via TC’s “Let’s Talk Transportation” online platform to identify potential irritants with TC’s aircraft identification and registration program. In response to the question “What specific complaints do you have about Part II of the Canadian Aviation Regulations,” TC received six comments from five stakeholders mostly expressing concern over the long processing times to register/deregister an aircraft. Following this, a task team consisting of TC and industry participants met to review and validate the issues raised along with other Part II irritants identified and compiled over the years by TC subject matter experts (SMEs). This process resulted in a final list of proposed amendments to improve the clarity, readability and effectiveness of Part II of the CARs.

In the second phase, between January and August 2022, a proposal was published online containing proposed amendments to the fee schedule for registration services provided by TC to aircraft owners and operators. In all, 260 comments were received from a wide cross-section of the aviation industry. While there was some support for the proposed fee changes, stakeholders who were not supportive expressed common concerns about the size of the fee increases, lack of service standards and the timing of the consultation. Major themes which emerged from a detailed analysis of the specific comments are summarized in Table II below, along with TC’s responses:

Table II: Summary of comments received from consultations on the fee modernization proposal

Stakeholder Comments/Concerns

Transport Canada Response

Comments about the proposed fee structure and implementation included:

  • Taxes collected should be used to cover aircraft registration services.
  • Fees should be adjusted every 5 years instead of annually.
  • Proposed fees are higher than those charged in other countries.
  • TC should consider the U.S. fee model as a way to support Canadian civil aviation services.
  • Implementation of new fees should be phased in.
  • Registration fees should be based on aircraft type, weight and usage but aircraft used for recreational and not-for-profit purposes should be exempted.

Some of TC’s civil aviation services, such as the replacement of a lost interim CoR and authorization to operate an unmarked aircraft, have been provided to individuals and industry free of charge, while fees for other services have not been revised in over 20 years. This means that current fees do not reflect the real cost of delivering the services. Currently, much of the costs of providing registration services are borne by the taxpayer, which creates an unsustainable funding situation. Adjusting these fees annually rather than every 5 years would enable the fees to keep pace with the related costs of delivering civil aviation registration services in Canada.

TC recognizes that other jurisdictions may have multiple funding sources in addition to charging service fees, such as imposing taxes on aviation fuel and air passenger tickets. TC does not have the authority to create additional taxes on fuel or tickets. TC’s only approach to closing the funding gap is by updating its service fees to support aviation in Canada.

A phased-in implementation may be helpful to those paying fees when those fees are recurring to lessen the financial impact. However, the civil aviation registration fees, which are per owner and aircraft, are predominantly one-time only fees. Therefore, phasing in the fees was deemed unnecessary.

With respect to fee implementation based on aircraft characteristics, TC believes that charging based on aircraft maximum take-off weight or operational use would add unnecessary complexities to the fee design. The level of effort to further break down these costs and implement the fees by aircraft type and usage may not be justifiable by any potential savings. As well, avoiding additional fee tiers would also encourage stakeholders to accurately report aircraft particulars in the register, including maximum take-off weight.

Adding exemptions for certain aircraft types does not align with TC’s regulatory objective of maintaining an efficient CCAR. This is because additional qualification and verification procedures would be required to validate eligibility, which overall would exacerbate already existing service delivery challenges.

Comments about the impact of the new fees on Canadian aviation (in general) included:

  • concern that the proposed fees could
    • discourage young people from becoming private pilots.
    • add more costs to own and operate an aircraft.
    • reduce the number of people flying in Canada, which could negatively affect small communities.
    • discourage compliance with aircraft-related regulations.
  • concern that the luxury tax on the sale or import of an aircraft priced over $100,000 could add to the impact of the proposed aircraft registration fees.
  • expectation that the proceeds from the luxury tax and other aviation-related taxes should be enough to fund civil aviation services.

For aircraft that have never been in the CCAR or in cases of transfer of ownership, the proposed fees are minimal relative to the costs associated with purchasing/financing, operating and maintaining the aircraft. The proposed fees are anticipated to have little impact on the continued operation of already registered aircraft that remain under the same ownership. Therefore, TC does not believe the proposed fees would be a major deterrent to those who wish to become pilots nor to those who are already flying.

The fees that TC charges are used to support TC’s delivery of its mandated services. The aircraft luxury tax was collected by the Canada Revenue Agency to fund activities that are unrelated to TC’s civil aviation services and are therefore outside the scope of the proposed Regulations. Nonetheless, Budget 2025 eliminated the luxury tax on aircraft effective November 5, 2025, ending the 10% tax on aircraft over $100,000 and providing relief to the aviation industry.

Comments about the public-private benefits of aircraft registration included:

  • the private benefit to aircraft owners should be estimated at 20% and the public benefit at 80% and not vice versa.
  • TC and other public agencies receive substantial benefits from having aircraft registered because:
    • the data and information from the CCAR help investigations by the Transportation Safety Board and law enforcement.
    • NAV CANADA uses owners’ addresses from the CCAR to bill them for services.
    • search and rescue agencies can use the CCAR information to aid their searches.
  • taxpayers benefit more from aircraft registration services through the development of new pilots working in the aviation industry.

A public-private assessment was performed using a Public-Private Benefit Assessment tool developed by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) and estimated that approximately 80% of the benefits from TC’s aircraft registration services accrue to clients, such as the companies, organizations and individuals who register their aircraft.

While different levels of government, public agencies, and the general public do receive a benefit from aircraft registrations, such as increased safety from oversight, enforcement, and investigation activities, the aircraft owner also enjoys these same benefits, in addition to several other private benefits.

The private benefits give the owner the ability to operate their aircraft both domestically and internationally. The aircraft registration allows the owner to use the aircraft to engage in commercial activity, access markets, and earn income, in addition to engaging in personal and recreational activities.

Aircraft registration marks enhance aircraft safety via clear communications between air traffic control and aircraft operators. Marks can also facilitate efficient search and rescue efforts in the event of an emergency.

Comments related to service delivery included:

  • modernizing and streamlining processes such as creating a web portal, linked to TC databases, that would allow users to enter the information needed to register an aircraft and upload scanned documents.
  • suggestion to waive fees if the service cannot be delivered within the service standard.
  • suggestion to delay the payment of a fee until the requested service is delivered.
  • recommendation to privatize registration services through the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association.

TC is continuing to work on enhancing its service delivery by way of developing web-based application forms that incorporate electronic file submission capabilities and online payment. TC is also streamlining and simplifying the aircraft registration webpages to improve their content, clarity, navigability, and accessibility for clients.

In addition to updating service standards as part of the proposed aircraft registration fee modernization, in accordance with TC’s Policy on remissions, a portion of the fee would be reimbursed if the service standard is not met. To ensure effective service delivery, it is important that requested services be paid for upfront. This process is more efficient to administer than pursuing an invoicing model which would require additional resources to support the invoicing and collection of payments from clients after the service has been performed.

TC is not considering the privatization of the delivery of aircraft registration services, as this approach would not be practical or desirable at this time.

On January 4, 2024, TC published the official Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA 2024-001) outlining the proposed changes to aircraft registration requirements and fees for stakeholder comment. Publication of the NPA 2024-001 is the final step in TC’s consultation process and it is the formal means by which stakeholders and the public can provide comments on proposals and participate in the regulatory development process. At the end of the 35-day comment period, TC received 245 submissions from various stakeholders, including industry associations, manufacturers, aircraft owners and operators, pilot licence/permit holders, training facilities, flying clubs and the public.

Most of the proposed amendments received few or no comments. However, the proposed change to the definition of ultralight aeroplane received a large number of comments, accounting for 90 per cent of the comments submitted.

The main view(s) that emerged from the consultation are summarized in Table III, grouped in themes by the type of change being proposed.

Table III: Summary of comments received from stakeholder consultations on the Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA 2024-001)

Stakeholder Comments/Concerns

Transport Canada Response

Clarify Perceived Ambiguous Definitions:

Most of the feedback received on this topic pertained to the proposal to amend the definition of "ultralight aeroplane" to include only those registered as such. Numerous comments were received from ultralight pilot permit holders, private pilot licence holders, flight instructors and industry organizations. Respondents were unanimous in their opposition to the proposed amendment and cited the potential loss of long-standing operating privileges for owners and operators of ultralight aeroplanes if the current definition was amended as proposed. Stakeholders identified other adverse impacts such as increased costs to comply with the proposed changes and a higher administrative burden borne mostly by the general aviation community. Respondents suggested delaying the proposed change and allowing more consultations to minimize these and other predictable negative impacts on the industry.

In response to the comments received and in line with TC’s approach of collaborative stakeholder engagement in developing regulatory proposals, TC will not be proceeding with an amendment to the definition of an ultralight aeroplane at this time. This will allow for further consultation and policy work to be completed to minimize any potential unintended consequences on affected stakeholders.

Revised Service Fees:

Few stakeholder submissions were received on this topic. While some respondents did not explicitly support the revised fee structure, they agreed with the need to revise the fees if there is corresponding improvement in service delivery and service standards. Any respondents who were opposed to the proposed amendments to fees noted that the increased fees would place a burden on owners and operators, especially those in general aviation, including those with joint-ownership arrangements where the registered owners of a shared aircraft change more frequently.

TC has provided some civil aircraft registration services to individuals and industry free of charge, while fees for other services have not changed in the past 20 years. These fees do not currently reflect the real cost to deliver the services and places an increasing portion of the burden on the taxpayer.

The proposed fee changes would help TC recover more of the cost of its registration activities from those who request and benefit directly from these services.

Repeal Certain Aircraft Leasing Provisions:

Regarding the proposed repeals of certain leasing provisions which restrict the maximum number and authorizations to operate leased aircraft (section 203.07) and place limits on the period of operation under authorization (section 203.08), one respondent indicated that the removal of these requirements could result in a safety oversight gap even if some of these provisions are not directly related to aviation safety, which is the primary mandate of the CARs.

Another respondent indicated that in proposing to remove the requirement to specify lease operating conditions under subsection 203.03(2), the Minister would be stepping away from their responsibilities and could negatively impact conditions under which leased aircraft are operated in Canada.

Both leasing provisions have become redundant over time since they were not focused on aviation safety but on the control of business activities which, along with other transportation economic issues, are not directly related to the safety mandate of the CARs. However, given the feedback from stakeholders, TC has decided to re-evaluate the proposed repeals to ensure there are no unintended consequences. TC will therefore not be proceeding with the proposed repeal of section 203.07 and section 203.08 at this time.

The requirement for the Minister to specify operating conditions for a lease arrangement under subsection 203.03(2) is not being completely removed. The proposed amendment maintains the Minister’s power to specify operating conditions unique to the leasing operation, when necessary, while recognizing that in most cases it is not necessary to do so because existing provisions in the CARs regulate operations.

The CARs lay out comprehensive requirements for safety standards, maintenance requirements, crew qualifications, etc., and adherence to approved operational procedures. Aircraft leased under Subpart 203 are not exempt from those requirements.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposed amendments are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. The assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposed amendments in relation to modern treaties in effect and after examination, no implications or impacts on modern treaties were identified. As well, a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) assessment was conducted to identify any potential impacts of the regulatory proposal on the rights and interests of indigenous peoples. No direct, indirect, hidden, or unintended effects were found. The proposal does not intersect with the rights and interests of First Nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis Peoples as set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Instrument choice

A careful review by a joint TC and industry team, as well as extensive stakeholder consultations on the issues addressed under this regulatory proposal, established that regulatory amendments to the CARs would be the most effective way of resolving the identified issues. Given that most of the proposed amendments are intended to (i) update, modify or repeal obsolete and/or redundant definitions, terminologies and practices, (ii) clarify existing regulatory requirements to improve ease of comprehension, and (iii) facilitate the adoption of revised service fees prescribed by the CARs, no non-regulatory options were considered. All of the issues under consideration had been identified as irritants by stakeholders and TC experts. Given that the issues raised are technical and administrative issues affecting requirements in the CARs, they must be dealt with through regulatory amendments. No non-regulatory options were considered.

Regulatory analysis

The proposed Regulations would update and restructure service fees associated with aircraft registration services, rebalancing the costs between service users and Canadian taxpayers. The proposed Regulations would also improve regulatory efficiency by clarifying ambiguous rules. The proposed Regulations are expected to result in a total present value cost of $6.90 million (2026 Canadian dollars, discounted to the first period of 2026 at a 7% discount rate) for a 10-year period between 2026 and 2035. The total monetized present value benefit is estimated to be $7.48 million for the same period. As a result, the estimated net present benefit of the proposed Regulations would be $0.58 million.

The removal of certain service fees is anticipated to result in minimal costs to TC but would benefit service users. The increase in revenue from the adjusted fee structure is expected to offset existing costs.

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The costs and benefits for the proposed Regulations have been assessed in accordance with TBS’s Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis. Where possible, impacts are quantified and monetized, with only the direct costs and benefits for stakeholders being considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

Benefits and costs associated with the proposed Regulations are assessed based on comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what would likely happen in the future if TC did not implement the proposed Regulations. The regulatory scenario provides information on the potential outcome that would be the result of implementing the proposed Regulations. Details of these scenarios are further described below.

Following TBS’s Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, the scope of this analysis is at the societal level, analyzing costs and benefits attributed to Canadians. Due to the cost-recovery nature of the proposed Regulations, service fees paid by domestic service users represent a shift in the cost burden from Canadians (represented by TC) to Canadian service users. Service fees paid by foreign service users represent a net increase in the cost recovered by Canadians (since these costs would not be borne by Canadians). Therefore, costs to domestic service users would have a neutral impact on Canadian society, while costs to foreign service users are considered a benefit to Canadians.

The analysis estimates the impact of the proposed Regulations over a 10-year period from 2026 to 2035. A year in this analysis constitutes a 12-month period starting from the registration date of the proposed Regulations (expected in 2026) to the same date in the following year. Unless otherwise noted, all values are expressed in present values in 2026 Canadian dollars,footnote 1 discounted to the base year of 2026 at a 7% discount rate for the 10-year period. Note that 1) numbers presented in the analysis may not add up to totals due to rounding, and 2) the formula used to calculate annualized values under the Cost-benefit statement and the Small business lens follows the methodology prescribed in TBS’s Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals where impacts occurring in the first period are undiscounted.

Affected stakeholders

The proposed Regulations would impact the aviation sector, specifically aircraft owners, operators, manufacturers, and governments at different levels.

According to TC’s CCAR database,footnote 2 there are 34 782 registered aircraft in Canada, of which 32 655 are active registrations. Among the active registrations, 32 618 (99.89%) are registered to domestic owners (further details are presented in Table IV), and 37 (0.11%) are registered to foreign owners.

Table IV provides a breakdown of the total active domestic registrations recorded in the CCAR. It categorizes registrations into private, commercial, and state ownership.

Table IV: Active domestic CCAR registrations, by type of user
Type # of Registered Aircraft % of Total Registration
Private 19,950 61.16%
Commercial 12,459 38.20%
State table b3 note * 209 0.64%
Total 32,618 100.00%

Table b3 note(s)

Table b3 note *

Private, Commercial, and State are the ownership classifications used in the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register (CCAR). "State" ownership refers specifically to aircraft owned by government entities at the federal, provincial, or municipal level.

Note that the 12,459 active domestic commercial registered aircraft are owned by 4,836 Canadian businesses. More specifically, 4,744 small-sized businesses own 8,971 aircraft, and 92 medium/ large-sized businesses own 3,488 aircraft.

Return to table b3 note * referrer
Baseline and regulatory scenarios

Under the baseline scenario, TC would continue to charge aircraft registration users with existing service fees. Aircraft owners transferring or selling aircraft from Canada would be required to submit all related agreements to TC. Police forces would continue to apply for exemptions from TC to operate aircraft without displaying registration marks. Manufacturers would continue to be prohibited from conducting cross-border operations, such as test flights.

Under the regulatory scenario, service fees would be updated: some existing fees would be removed, other existing fees would be increased, and new fees would be introduced. Aircraft owners transferring or selling aircraft to be exported from Canada would no longer be required to submit all agreements related to the transfer or sale of the aircraft. Police forces would no longer need to apply for exemptions from TC to operate aircraft without displaying registration marks. Finally, the proposed Regulations would clarify various definitions. As a result, the added clarity would reduce the processing time and lead to greater operational flexibility for manufacturers, including allowing them to conduct cross-border operations such as test flights.

Data and methodology

To estimate the incremental impacts of the proposed Regulations, a combination of data that are recorded at TC or publicly available, as well as assumptions made by subject experts at TC, were used.

Service transactions subject to service fees

Data recorded at TC provided annual figures from fiscal years 2018–2019 to 2023–2024 on service transactions (e.g. applications, service requests) related to most types of existing services. It is observed that, in general, most types of service transactions were trending steadily during this period, with the average annual growth rate ranging between -7% and 7%. The annual service transactions in the time frame are projected based on the 2023–2024 transactions and the annual average growth rates.

Future transactions were projected using three different methods, depending on the availability and consistency of historical data. For services with stable historical trends, the average annual growth rate was applied to the most recent observed volume, assuming a constant rate of growth over the analytical period. For services with highly variable or low volumes, the highest number of observed annual requests was used as a constant proxy. For services where historical data was unavailable, as it is not recorded at TC, SMEs provided annual estimates. These values were held constant throughout the analytical period. Forecasted volumes were multiplied by the proposed service fees to estimate annual revenues. Requests to amend information on CoRs, requests to retrieve aircraft historical information, and display mark authorization requests from police forces were also assessed using internal historical data.

For amendments to CoRs, an average annual growth rate of 4% was observed. To estimate potential growth in demand that would result from the removal of the associated service fee, historical trends in CCAR registrations were used as a proxy. Over the past 10 years, CCAR registrations have grown at an average annual rate of 12.64%. This growth trend was applied proportionally to the observed 4% annual growth rate in requests, resulting in an incremental increase of 0.53 percentage points. Accordingly, the revised forecasted growth rate for CoR amendment requests is estimated at 4.53% annually, resulting in an estimated 884 requests over the analytical period. Under the baseline scenario, TC’s net per-unit cost to process these requests is estimated at $188.39, calculated as the total cost of $253.39 minus the $65 recovered service fee. Under the regulatory scenario, the $65 fee would be eliminated, making TC’s net per-unit cost $253.39. Consequently, the cost-recovery rate would decrease from approximately 26% to 0%.

For requests to retrieve aircraft historical information, annual volumes were low and highly variable, showing an observed year-over-year growth rate of 36%. Rather than use this rate, the analysis applied the observed average of 13 annual transactions as the baseline. To estimate potential growth in demand for this service due to the removal of the associated service fee, historical trends in CCAR registrations were used as a proxy in this case as well. Applying the 12.64% CCAR growth rate over the analytical period produced a forecast of approximately 301 total requests over the 10-year period. Under the baseline scenario, TC’s net per-unit cost to process these requests is estimated at $168.93, calculated as the total cost of $223.93 minus the $55 recovered service fee. Under the regulatory scenario, the $55 fee would be eliminated, making TC’s net per-unit cost $223.39. Consequently, the cost-recovery rate would decrease from approximately 25% to 0%.

With respect to display mark authorization requests from police forces, TC expects that there would be two requests received over the 10-year analytical period.

The analysis assumed price inelasticity of demand for fees that would increase, meaning that the proposed changes in service fees would not affect demand levels. This assumption is consistent with typical regulatory fee modelling, particularly for federally mandated services where there are no alternative providers. The proposed fee changes are considered negligible when compared to the much larger costs of owning and operating an aircraft. Moreover, because these fees are one-time and non-recurring, they are unlikely to influence demand. Together, these factors reinforce the expectation that the proposed increases would not affect demand levels.

However, for the removal of the service fees, it was assumed that the demand for the service would increase, as service users would no longer face a financial barrier to submitting changes, making them more likely to request them when necessary.

A supporting forecast table for each of the affected services is presented below to illustrate proposed fee increases and projected transaction volumes.

Table V: Existing and proposed service fees and associated service transactions, by fee category
Fee Category Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee 10-year Total Forecasted Transactions Methodology
Reservation Fee Reserve a registration mark $45 $140 2 747 Trend Projection
Reserve a particular registration mark $140 $270 3 030 Trend Projection
Issuance Fee Issue a provisional certificate of registration $65 $200 79 Trend Projection
Issue an initial continuing certificate of registration $110 $450 20 070 Trend Projection
Issue a continuing certificate of registration for a transfer of custody and control $110 $400 5 541 Trend Projection
Renewal and Change Fee Amendment to a CoR $65 N/A 884 Adjusted Trend Projection
Renew a registration mark reservation before it expires N/A $70 2 747 Trend Projection
Special Service Fee Authorize an alternate registration mark size, location or variance from the specifications for registration marks N/A $500 80 Peak-Year Proxy
Authorize the operation of an aircraft that does not display a registration mark N/A $200 80 SME Estimate
Authorize the operation of an aircraft that does not display a registration mark (for Police Forces) N/A table b4 note * $200 2 SME Estimate
Renewal and Change Fee Change of registration mark after the issuance of continuing registration N/A $650 301 Trend Projection
Document Fee Provide a blank interim certificate of registration N/A $109 500 SME Estimate
Retrieving aircraft historical information $55 N/A 171 Adjusted Trend Projection
Table b4 note(s)
Table b4 note *

The $475 service fee associated with these exemptions has historically not been charged to police forces when applying for this service.

Return to table b4 note * referrer
Opportunity and labour costs

Impacts for CoR amendment requests and requests to retrieve aircraft historical information were calculated using internal costing information and historical TC data. Impacts for display mark authorization requests from police forces were calculated using TBS collective agreement wage estimates, relevant National Occupational Classification (NOC) information, and internal SME input.

For both requests to amend a CoR and requests to retrieve aircraft historical information, opportunity costs to TC were also considered, as TC employees would need to handle additional requests each year compared to the baseline scenario.

For display marks authorization requests, limited information could be disclosed due to their sensitive nature. As such, it was assumed that police forces would experience time and resource savings similar to those of TC. Based on expert input, both TC and police forces are expected to require approximately five employees each taking one full work week (37.5 hours) to prepare or process an exemption request. In contrast, the proposed authorization process is expected to require only two employees each taking two working days (15 hours).

TC employees responsible for processing display marks authorization requests at TC were identified as being at the TI-6 classification level. For police forces, it was assumed that the personnel preparing these requests would fall under NOC 42100 for police officers.

Transfer or sale of exported aircraft

For aircraft exports, historical figures from the CCAR were used to estimate annual export volumes. An annual growth rate of 1.08% was observed and applied to forecast future export figures, resulting in an estimated 8 849 total exports over the analytical period. An average wage rate of $26.09footnote 3 was applied to estimate cost savings for private aircraft owners submitting documents to TC, while an overhead-adjusted wage rate of $32.62footnote 4 (reflecting a 25% overhead) was used to estimate cost savings for commercial or state aircraft owners.

Cancelled or suspended CoRs

Information on the number of CoRs that are cancelled or suspended annually was obtained through consultation with SMEs. Based on their input, it is estimated that approximately 50 CoRs are cancelled or suspended each year. This figure represents the closest available estimate of total cancellations or suspensions, as TC does not track all types of CoR revocations.

The share of returned CoRs originating from private, commercial or state registrations is not known. Therefore, CCAR registration data were used as a proxy to estimate the distribution, resulting in 306 returns from private CoR holders, 191 returns from commercial CoR holders and 3 returns from state CoR holders over the analytical period. This amendment is further discussed qualitatively below.

Small business estimate

A total of 4 839 commercially registered aircraft owners were identified through the CCAR, 4 836 of which are domestic. To determine the number of affected small businesses, publicly available information and fleet size data were analyzed. Based on this analysis, it was assumed that businesses with fewer than 20 registered aircraft were classified as small, while those with 20 or more were categorized as medium to large. Based on this threshold, 98.08% of commercial owners were identified as small businesses, and only 1.92% fell into the medium to large category.

This distribution closely aligns with Statistics Canada’s Key Small Business Statistics 2024, which reported that as of December 2023, 98.1% of businesses in Canada were small businesses, with just 1.5% and 0.3% categorized as medium and large businesses, respectively. Given this consistency, the approach was deemed sufficient to support the analysis.

Benefits

The proposed Regulations are expected to generate economic benefits through improved efficiency and cost recovery. While most benefits are qualitative in nature, others can be monetized and are outlined below. As previously mentioned, the total monetized benefit of the proposed Regulations is estimated at $7.48 million, of which $6.89 million is associated with the service fees ($6.84 million is associated with the amended service fees for domestic and foreign service users, $0.04 million is associated with the removal of the service fee to amend information on CoRs and $0.01 million is associated with the fee removal for requests to retrieve aircraft historical information), $0.57 million is associated with the removal of document submission requirements for exported aircraft and $0.03 million is associated with the new display mark authorization process.

Service fees

The proposed Regulations are projected to recover approximately $6.84 million from both domestic and foreign aircraft owners and operators. Of the $6.84 million in total service-fee benefits, approximately $6.83 million is expected to come from domestic service users and approximately $0.01 million from foreign service users. The recovered fees from foreign aircraft owners and operators are treated as an incremental benefit because they are not costs borne by Canadians. This estimate is based on historical volumes and forecasted demand across a range of service categories, including reservation, issuance, renewal, and special services. The revised fees were developed to reflect the complexity, effort, and regulatory oversight required to process each type of request.

Additionally, the proposed Regulations would eliminate the existing $65 service fee for processing changes to information on a CoR, while continuing to provide the service at no cost. This change is expected to benefit aircraft owners by removing a direct financial barrier to fulfilling their regulatory obligation to report changes. By eliminating the fee, service users would collectively save an estimated $0.04 million. In addition to reducing costs for aircraft owners, the measure is expected to promote greater compliance and contribute to more accurate and up-to-date information in the CCAR.

Lastly, the proposed Regulations would also eliminate the $55 service fee to retrieve aircraft historical information. By eliminating the fee, service users would collectively save an estimated $0.01 million.

Transfer or sale of exported aircraft

TC SMEs estimated that the process of gathering and submitting required documentation would take an average of three hours to complete. SMEs also noted that these documents are submitted to TC online; therefore, no postage costs were considered. An average wage rate of $26.09footnote 3 (or $32.62 including an overhead rate of 25%) per hour for administrative support workers was applied to estimate the value of time savings.

The removal of this requirement is expected to result in total savings of $0.57 million over the analytical period for aircraft owners involved in the sale of an aircraft that would be exported outside of Canada.

Display marks authorizations

The new authorization process proposed by TC would replace the exemption process and streamline service delivery. As noted previously, each authorization would require only two employees, as opposed to five employees for the existing exemption process, and could be processed in 15 working hours, as opposed to 37.5 working hours for the existing exemption process, lowering the estimated cost per request from $9,700 to approximately $1,550. An average wage rate of $51.79 per hour was used for employees at the TI-6 level processing these requests. This represents a reduction of over 80% in administrative effort per request. This proposed amendment is expected to generate estimated cost savings of $0.01 million for TC.

It is also expected that police forces would experience cost savings similar to TC resulting from this proposed amendment. An average wage rate of $52.19footnote 5 (or $65.24 including an overhead rate of 25%) per hour for police officers was applied to estimate savings from the streamlined application process, which is expected to generate cost savings of $0.02 million for police forces.

For operators, the shift to a faster, less complex process would reduce wait times and improve service predictability. Although processing time would drop from five to two working days, TC expects that there would be no operational impact on police forces, as requests are submitted in advance and aircraft operation is not dependent on the timing of the approval.

Non-monetized benefits
Ambiguous definitions

The proposed Regulations would include targeted definition updates to improve clarity and consistency within the CARs by modernizing outdated language and addressing long-standing ambiguities, such as those related to “custody and control,” “registered,” and “registration mark.” These changes are expected to reduce misinterpretation and improve regulatory certainty. The expanded definition of “registered” to include manufacturer-operated aircraft would also provide benefits through greater flexibility for manufacturers, enabling them to conduct cross-border test flights and related operational activities as necessary.

Aircraft identification

The proposed Regulations would clarify requirements for aircraft identification plates to address regulatory gaps and reduce misinterpretation. By specifying rules around the installation and removal of plates and allowing flexibility for legacy aircraft, the proposed amendments would improve clarity and promote consistent application of the CARs and are expected to ease compliance for affected service users. In particular, the change would allow older aircraft to retain identification plates in their original mounting locations when replacements are authorized, easing compliance by permitting aircraft owners to meet requirements without unnecessary modifications or relocations.

Aircraft registration

The proposed Regulations would improve clarity and alignment within aircraft registration and marking requirements. They would address long-standing issues, such as inappropriate registration marks for ultralight aircraft, eliminate outdated provisions like temporary registrations, and clarify exemptions for certain aircraft types. By aligning more closely with international standards and recognizing common industry practices, including third-party notifications of ownership transfers, the proposed amendments are expected to reduce administrative burden and support better compliance.

Administrative monetary penalties (AMPs)

The proposed Regulations eliminate redundant provisions and clarify applicable penalties to promote more consistent application.

For example, the penalty range for non-compliance related to aircraft identification plates would be adjusted to better reflect the nature of the violation, while a duplicative provision would be repealed to reduce confusion. Additionally, penalty designations for certain aircraft registration requirements would be removed to align with restructured regulatory language.

These changes strengthen the AMPs regime by improving clarity, streamlining enforcement, and ensuring that penalties remain proportionate and consistent.

Costs

The proposed amendments outlined below aim to modernize the fees, requiring aircraft owners and operators who directly benefit from these services to assume a higher portion of the costs. As previously mentioned, the total cost of the proposed Regulations is estimated at $6.90 million, of which $6.83 million is associated with domestic service users and the updated service fees and $0.07 million are associated with TC due to the removal of the service fee to amend information on a CoR ($0.05 million) and the removal of the service fee to retrieve aircraft historical information ($0.02 million).

Service fees

The proposed amendments to aircraft registration fees are expected to result in a total cost of $6.83 million for Canadian aircraft owners, operators, and manufacturers. These costs stem from the introduction of new and revised fees across key service categories, including reservation, issuance, renewal, and special services.

The updated fee structure was informed by historical request volumes and projected demand over the 10-year analytical period. Each fee adjustment reflects the administrative effort, complexity, and regulatory oversight required to deliver the service.

As discussed above, notable changes include increases to reservation and issuance fees, including a tiered approach for CoRs and the introduction of new fees for renewals, post-issuance changes, and special service requests.

Amendments to information on CoRs

The proposal to remove the fee for this service is expected to result in incremental costs for TC but is intended to encourage aircraft owners to comply with regulatory requirements to report changes and is anticipated to improve the accuracy of the CCAR.

Based on the inputs mentioned above, the proposed amendment is expected to result in incremental costs of approximately $0.05 million over the analytical time frame.

To address the uncertainty surrounding how many additional requests would result from the removal of the service fee, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess two alternative growth scenarios. More information is provided below in the sensitivity analysis section.

Requests to retrieve aircraft historical information

The proposal to remove the fee for this service is also expected to result in incremental costs for TC.

Based on the inputs mentioned above, the proposed amendment is expected to result in incremental costs of approximately $0.02 million over the analytical time frame.

Non-monetized costs
Cancelled or suspended CoRs

Under the proposed Regulations, holders of cancelled or suspended CoRs would no longer be required to return these documents to the Minister, as CoRs are no longer issued in paper form. In practice, this change has already occurred and would, therefore, not result in any incremental savings between the baseline and regulatory scenarios. However, a new requirement would be introduced in its place for holders to destroy the digital copy of the cancelled or suspended certificate, which would represent a new procedural step. Given the negligible effort required to delete a file, this cost has not been monetized in this analysis.

Cost-benefit statement
Table VI: Monetized benefits (present value in millions)
Impacted stakeholder Description of benefit First period: 2026 Annual average: 2027-2034 Final period: 2035 Total (present value) Annualized value
Canadians (Represented by TC) Service Fees from Foreign Service Users $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.00
Service Fees from Domestic Service Users $0.97 $0.67 $0.47 $6.83 $0.91
Domestic service users Transfer or Sale of Exported Aircraft $0.07 $0.06 $0.04 $0.57 $0.08
Fee removal for CoR Information Amendments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.04 $0.01
Fee removal for Aircraft Historical Information $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.00
Display Mark Authorizations $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.00
Transport Canada Display Mark Authorizations $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.00
All stakeholders Total benefits $1.05 $0.74 $0.52 $7.48 $1.00
Table VII: Monetized costs (present value in millions)
Impacted stakeholder Description of cost First period: 2026 Annual average: 2027-2034 Final period: 2035 Total (present value) Annualized value
Domestic service users Service Fees $0.97 $0.67 $0.47 $6.83 $0.91
Transport Canada Fee Removal for CoR Information Amendments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.05 $0.01
Fee removal for Aircraft Historical Information $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.00
All stakeholders Total costs $0.97 $0.68 $0.48 $6.90 $0.92
Table VIII: Summary of monetized costs and benefits (present value in millions)
Impacted stakeholder First period: 2026 Annual average: 2027-2034 Final period: 2035 Total (present value) Annualized value
Total benefits $1.05 $0.74 $0.52 $7.48 $1.00
Total costs $0.97 $0.68 $0.48 $6.90 $0.92
NET BENEFIT $0.08 $0.06 $0.04 $0.58 $0.08
Non-monetized benefits

The proposed Regulations are expected to deliver several qualitative benefits:

Sensitivity analysis

To address the effect of uncertainty and variability, a sensitivity analysis is conducted, where variables are assigned different values and outcomes are re-evaluated. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the following variables: analytical time frame, discount rates and the number of forecasted transactions for amendments to information on CoRs.

Analytical time frame

A 10-year analytical time frame was used for the central analysis, whereas the sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 15-year time frame have been used.

Discount rate

The central analysis used a 7% discount rate, as recommended by TBS. The sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 10% discount rate or 3% discount rate have been used, as well as if there was no discounting.

Table IX: Sensitivity analysis results for the net benefit (in millions)
Time frame/Discount rate 10-year time frame 15-year time frame
Undiscounted (0%) $0.76 $1.23
3% $0.68 $0.98
7% $0.58 table b8 note * $0.76
10% $0.52 $0.65
Table b8 note(s)
Table b8 note *

Value presented in the main analysis

Return to table b8 note * referrer
Amendments to information on CoRs

As outlined above, historical data shows that annual requests to amend information on a CoR have increased at an average rate of 4% per year, which led to a projected higher increase of 4.53% annually upon removal of the service fee (under the Regulatory scenario). The sensitivity analysis examined a medium-demand growth scenario in which this rate increases to 8%, and a high-demand growth scenario in which it increases to 12%. These scenarios help illustrate a range of potential impacts.

Under the medium-growth scenario, it is assumed that annual requests to amend information on a CoR would grow at 8% year-over-year following the removal of the service fee. This would result in an increased volume of requests over the 10-year analytical period, placing additional administrative demands on TC. The number of incremental transactions is estimated at 276 over the 10-year analytical period, with TC employee time and associated opportunity costs increasing proportionally. The present value costs, including opportunity costs, are estimated at approximately $0.09 million for this scenario.

Under the high-growth scenario, it is assumed that annual requests to amend information on a CoR would grow at 12% year-over-year following the removal of the service fee. This would result in an increased volume of requests over the 10-year analytical period, placing additional administrative demands on TC. The number of incremental transactions is estimated at 623 over the 10-year analytical period, with TC employee time and associated opportunity costs increasing proportionally. The present value costs, including opportunity costs, are estimated at approximately $0.15 million for this scenario.

Distributional analysis

As mentioned previously, the proposed Regulations would impact the aviation industry, specifically aircraft owners, operators, manufacturers, and government departments/agencies. It is estimated that the largest share of costs would be attributed to private aircraft owners, who account for approximately 61% of all active registrations.

Table X: Costs and benefits to affected domestic service users, by registration type (in millions) table b9 note *
Owner type (active registrations) Registrations % of total registrations Total cost Total benefits Net impact
Private registrations 19,950 61.16% $4.18 $0.38 -$3.80
Commercial registrations 12,459 38.20% $2.61 $0.23 -$2.37
State registrations 209 0.64% $0.04 $0.02 -$0.02
TOTAL table b9 note ** 32,618 100% $6.83 $0.63 -$6.20

Table b9 note(s)

Table b9 note *

Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Return to table b9 note * referrer

Table b9 note **

The total benefits follow the same distribution across private, commercial, and state registrations, with one exception: the $0.02 million benefit associated with the new display mark authorization process. This benefit is attributed exclusively to police forces, whose aircraft are registered under the state category.

Return to table b9 note ** referrer

Small business lens

A few of the proposed amendments, such as the five proposed new fees related to aircraft registration services, would impose new costs, primarily on aircraft owners and operators, some of whom may be considered small businesses. Analysis of the CCAR indicates that approximately 72% of all active commercial domestic aircraft registrations belong to small-sized businesses. However, no regulatory flexibility measures were considered necessary, as the proposed new fees would be non-recurring, relatively minor in magnitude, and ultimately intended to ensure that those who directly benefit from the service bear a greater share of its actual cost. Given this rationale and considering that these fees would represent a small fraction of the overall operating costs typically incurred in the aviation industry, the proposed amendments are not expected to have a serious impact on small business operations within the commercial aviation sector.

Small business lens summary

Small businesses are not expected to incur administrative costs, as the proposed Regulations do not introduce new administrative requirements. The impacts on small businesses are limited to compliance costs associated with the service fees and benefits resulting from the removal of two service fees, as well as from eliminating the requirement for aircraft owners to gather and submit documentation related to the sale or transfer of exported aircraft.

To quantify these impacts, TC examined the composition of the CCAR to identify the share of actively registered aircraft held by small businesses. This analysis determined that approximately 27.5% of actively registered aircraft are owned by small businesses. Using this percentage, the overall service fee costs and benefits were allocated to estimate the portion borne by small businesses, ensuring that the analysis reflects their specific share of the total costs and benefits.

Table XI: Benefits
Activity Annualized value Present value
Transfer or sale of exported aircraft $20,778 $156,152
Fee removal for CoR information amendments $1,489 $11,190
Fee removal for aircraft historical information $197 $1,478
Total benefits $22,464 $168,821
Table XII: Compliance costs
Activity Annualized value Present value
Service fees $249,925 $1,878,241
Total compliance cost $249,925 $1,878,241
Table XIII: Net costs
Activity Annualized value Present value
Net costs $227,461 $1,709,420
Cost per impacted small business table c3 note * $47.95 $360.33

Table c3 note(s)

Table c3 note *

This represents the average cost per affected small business, the actual cost for each business might vary significantly.

Return to table c3 note * referrer

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies, since there would be an incremental decrease in administrative burden on business. The regulatory proposal is considered burden OUT under the rule, and no regulatory titles would be repealed or introduced.

Using the methodology developed in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, and assumptions and data used previously, it is estimated that the annualized total cost savings would be $9,262 (present value in 2012 dollars, discounted to the base year of 2012 at a discount rate of 7%). The specific activities are outlined below.

To estimate administrative impacts, the same wage assumptions were applied to both activities. An average wage rate of $26.09footnote 3 per hour (or $32.62 including a 25% overhead rate) was used to represent administrative support workers performing these tasks. For the return of CoRs, an additional postage cost of $1.47footnote 6 per mailed certificate was included to capture associated mailing expenses.

Transfer or sale of exported aircraft

The proposed Regulations would eliminate a requirement for aircraft owners to collect and submit a copy of all agreements related to the transfer or sale of an aircraft that is being exported from Canada. This proposed amendment is expected to result in 3 380 fewer instances where commercial aircraft owners would be required to collect and submit these documents over the 10-year analytical time frame. Collecting and submitting a copy of all agreements related to the transfer or sale of an aircraft was assumed to require three hours, resulting in a unit cost of $97.85 per instance.

The proposed amendments related to not submitting a copy of all agreements related to the transfer or sale of an aircraft that is being exported from Canada to TC represent an annualized total cost savings of $9,240.

Cancelled or suspended CoRs

Furthermore, the proposed Regulations would also remove the requirement for holders of cancelled or suspended CoRs to return these documents to TC, as CoRs are no longer issued in paper form. This is expected to result in approximately 191 fewer administrative actions by certificate holders over the analytical time frame. Returning a cancelled or suspended CoR was assumed to require five minutes, resulting in a unit cost of $4.19footnote 7 per administrative action.

The proposed amendments related to not returning suspended or cancelled CoRs to TC represent an annualized total cost savings of $22.

It is important to note that the administrative burden cost savings for CoR holders estimated in this section are recorded for tracking purposes as per the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, but are not included in the cost-benefit analysis presented above. This is because, in practice, the impact of returning a cancelled or suspended CoR has already taken place earlier.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The proposed Regulations include two amendments that would bring Canada into compliance with standards under Annex 7 to the Chicago Convention pertaining to the prohibition of confusing registration marks and authorization for the Minister to issue Certificates of De-registration. The U.S., EU, UK, Australia and several of Canada’s major trading partners have aligned with these standards or are in the process of amending national policies to bring national laws in compliance. While the recent ICAO audit of Canada did not identify either the confusing marks or deregistration issue as a safety oversight concern, TC is committed to streamlining the CARs even further with Canada’s obligations under the Chicago Convention while also increasing regulatory cooperation with its closest trading partners.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, the strategic environmental and economic assessment (SEEA) process was followed for this regulatory proposal and a Climate, Nature, and Economy Lens (CNEL) was completed.

No important environmental or economic effects are anticipated as a result of this regulatory proposal.

Gender-based analysis plus

The proposed Regulations would ultimately improve aviation safety and would benefit Canadians and the entire aviation industry. The clarification of the aircraft identification and registration requirements in the CARs equally targets aircraft owners and operators across Canada and no differential geographic impacts are anticipated. The proposed Regulations would also support the improvement of registration services provided by TC to the civil aviation industry. Approximately 20% of stakeholders who directly benefit from these services are either commercial or government entities. There was no data available to support an assessment of gender and/or demographic impacts of the fee changes on these institutions. Of the remainder who are private aircraft owners for whom gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) impacts could be inferred; men make up over 90% and would be the significant “beneficiaries” of the service fee changes. The negative cost impacts would be mostly borne by working-aged men of higher income who are the demographic group most likely to hold private pilot licences and who are also able to afford the high aircraft ownership and operating costs. No generational impacts are anticipated.

Rationale

This regulatory proposal is part of planned deliverables under the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review Initiative. This initiative is TC’s response to the Budget 2018 Government of Canada commitment to undertake a regulatory review across several departments and agencies in support of innovation and business investment.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed Regulations would come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The proposed amendments address simple and non-controversial issues with the identification and registration of aircraft and fees associated with such services in Canada. The majority of the proposed amendments would clarify existing regulatory requirements and, therefore, would not require a change in existing implementation and enforcement procedures but rather would enhance compliance by increasing industry’s understanding of what is required for the proper identification of an aircraft in operation and its registration details in the CCAR. Stakeholders would be notified of the proposed amendments and of their coming into force by notification through the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council’s email distribution list once the proposed Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Compliance and enforcement

TC would continue to enforce compliance with the proposed Regulations through the assessment of AMPs for contravention of designated provisions under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act, or through suspension or cancellation of the CoR or other CAD pursuant to sections 6.9, 7 or 7.1, or as applicable, proceeding by way of summary conviction, pursuant to section 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act.

Service standards

As shown in Table XIV, as part of the proposed amendments to aircraft registration fees, TC is proposing to

Table XIV: List of current and proposed service standards for registration activities with fees
Item # Activities Current service standard Proposed service standard
1 Reservation of a registration mark 10 working days. Actual processing times can vary depending on the complexity and the completeness of the request. Issue the mark reservation letter within 10 business days of receiving a complete application.
2 Reservation of a particular registration mark 10 working days. Actual processing times can vary depending on the complexity and the completeness of the request. Issue the mark reservation letter within 10 business days of receiving a complete application.
3(a) Issuance of a certificate of registration, in respect of a provisional registration 60 working days. Actual processing times can vary depending on the complexity and completeness of the request. Issue the provisional certificate of registration within 10 business days of receiving a complete application.
3(b) Issuance of a certificate of registration, in respect of an initial continuing registration For a domestic aircraft: 60 working days. For an imported aircraft: 10 working days. Actual processing times can vary depending on the complexity and completeness of the request. Issue the continuing certificate of registration within 10 business days of receiving a complete application.
3(c) Issuance of a certificate of registration, in respect of a continuing registration for a transfer of custody and control For a domestic aircraft: 60 working days. Actual processing times can vary depending on the complexity and completeness of the request. Issue the continuing certificate of registration within 60 business days of receiving a complete application.
4 Renewal of a registration mark reservation before expiry 10 working days. Actual processing times can vary depending on the complexity and the completeness of the request. Issue the mark reservation letter within 5 business days of receiving a complete application.
5 Authorization to use an alternate registration mark size, display a registration mark in an alternate location or use any other variance from the specifications for registration marks None published. Issue the mark reservation letter within 20 business days of receiving a complete application.
6 Authorization to operate an aircraft in Canada that does not display a registration mark None published. Issue the authorization letter within 20 business days of receiving a complete application.
7 Change of a registration mark after the issuance of a continuing registration None published. Issue the continuing certificate of registration within 30 business days of receiving a complete application.
8 Provision of a blank interim certificate of registration None published. Provide the blank interim certificate of registration within 7 business days of receiving a complete application.

Contact

Steve Palisek
Acting Director
Regulatory Affairs Branch
Civil Aviation Directorate
Safety and Security Group
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613‑993‑7284
Toll-free: 1‑800‑305‑2059
Email: TC.CARConsultations-RACConsultations.TC@tc.gc.ca

Website: www.tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part II) under section 4.9footnote a and paragraphs 7.6(1)(a)footnote b and (b)footnote c of the Aeronautics Act footnote d.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the Director, Regulatory Affairs (AARK), Civil Aviation, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (email: TC.CARConsultations-RACConsultations.TC@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, March 13, 2026

Janna Rinaldi
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part II)

Amendments

1 (1) The definition launch weight in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations footnote 8 is repealed.

(2) The definition hang glider in subsection 101.01(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

hang glider
means a glider that is designed and constructed to carry not more than two persons and has a total weight of 45 kg (99.2 pounds) or less when it is ready for flight, including any equipment or instruments, but not including
  • (a) the weight of the persons;
  • (b) the weight of any float equipment to a maximum of 34 kg (74.96 pounds), or
  • (c) the weight of any ballistic parachute installation; (aile libre)

(3) Subsection 101.01(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

nationality mark
means a symbol, letter or numeral, or a combination of these, used by a state to indicate the nationality of aircraft that are registered in that state; (marque de nationalité)
police authority
means the Canadian Coast Guard, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Sûreté du Québec or any municipal or regional police force established under provincial legislation; (corps policier)

2 Paragraph 103.02(3)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

3 Section 103.03 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Return or Destruction of Canadian Aviation Documents

103.03 When a Canadian aviation document is suspended or cancelled, the person to whom it was issued must destroy it, including any electronic copies in their possession, immediately after the effective date of the suspension or cancellation, or return it to the Minister on request.

4 Subpart 1 of Part II of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by replacing the amounts in column II corresponding to the reference “Subsection 201.01(2)” in column I with the following:

Column I

Designated Provision

Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
Individual Corporation
Subsection 201.01(2) 3,000 15,000

5 The reference “Subsection 201.01(7)” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part II of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

6 Subpart 2 of Part II of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 202.01(4)”:

Column I

Designated Provision

Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
Individual Corporation
Subsection 202.01(5) 3,000 15,000

7 The reference “Subsection 202.28(2)” in column I of Subpart 2 of Part II of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

8 The reference “Subsection 202.37(1)” in column I of Subpart 2 of Part II of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

9 Paragraph 104.06.1(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

10 Item 4 of Schedule I to Subpart 4 of Part 1 of the Regulations is repealed.

11 Schedules II and III to Subpart 4 of Part 1 of the Regulations are replaced by the Schedules II and III set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

12 The heading “Part II — Aircraft Identification and Registration and Operation of a Leased Aircraft by a Non-Registered Owner” before section 200.01 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Part II — Aircraft Identification and Registration and Authorized Operation of a Leased Aircraft by a Non-Registered Owner

13 (1) The definitions nationality mark and special registration mark in section 200.01 of the Regulations are repealed.

(2) The definitions certificate of registration, registered and registration mark in section 200.01 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

certificate of registration
means a certificate issued under this Part and includes a certificate of registration issued by a contracting state or a foreign state that has an agreement with Canada that allows an aircraft that is registered in that foreign state to be operated in Canada; (certificat d’immatriculation)
registered,
in respect of an aircraft, means that the aircraft is registered under section 202.16 or 202.17 or deemed to be registered under subsection 202.07(2) and 202.36(1) or registered under the laws of a foreign state; (immatriculé)
registration mark
means the combination of letters or letters and numerals that is assigned by the Minister for display on an aircraft; (marque d’immatriculation)

(3) Section 200.01 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards
means Standard 222 – Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards, published under the authority of the Minister of Transport, as amended from time to time; (Normes sur le marquage et l’immatriculation des aĂ©ronef)
legal custody and control,
in respect of a Canadian aircraft, means complete responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the aircraft; (garde et responsabilité légales)
particular registration mark
means a specific registration mark reserved for an applicant; (marque d’immatriculation particulière)

14 Section 200.02 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

200.02 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Part applies in respect of all Canadian aircraft operated in and outside Canada and section 202.01 applies in respect of aircraft registered in a foreign state while operated in Canada.

(2) This Part does not apply in respect of

15 (1) Paragraph 201.01(2)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection 201.01(5) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5) If an aircraft does not have an aircraft identification plate or an aircraft has an aircraft identification plate but the plate does not have the information referred to in subsection (4), the owner of the aircraft must submit an application in writing to the Minister, including evidence that establishes the identity of the aircraft, for authorization to attach an aircraft identification plate to the aircraft or to alter the information on an aircraft identification plate.

(3) Subsection 201.01(7) of the Regulations is repealed.

16 The heading before section 201.03 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Removal and Attachment of and Alteration of Information on Aircraft Identification Plates

17 (1) The portion of subsection 201.03(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (c) is replaced by the following:

201.03 (1) Subject to subsections (5) and (7), without an authorization referred to in subsection (3), it is prohibited to do any of the following:

(2) Section 201.03 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):

(7) A manufacturer may, without authorization from the Minister referred to in subsection (3), attach an aircraft identification plate to an aircraft in accordance with subsection 201.01(2).

18 Subsection 201.05(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

201.05 (1) It is prohibited to install an engine, propeller, life-limited component, appliance, part, balloon basket or burner assembly for a balloon unless it is identified in accordance with sections 201.06 to 201.11.

19 The portion of section 201.08 of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

201.08 Les renseignements d’identification qui doivent ĂŞtre gravĂ©s ou estampĂ©s sur le moteur, le module de moteur, l’hĂ©lice Ă  pas fixe, la pale d’hĂ©lice et le moyeu d’hĂ©lice d’aĂ©ronef sont les suivants :

20 The portion of subsection 201.10(1) of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

201.10 (1) Sous rĂ©serve des paragraphes (4) et (5), le constructeur d’un appareillage ou d’une pièce — y compris une pièce approuvĂ©e par la dĂ©livrance d’une approbation de la conception de pièce — conformĂ©ment au paragraphe 201.05(2), y grave ou y estampe les renseignements d’identification suivants :

21 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 201.12:

Identity — Aircraft

201.13 (1) For the purposes of this Subpart, the fuselage, the hull or a similar structure of an aircraft, other than a balloon, constitutes evidence that establishes the identity of the aircraft.

(2) For the purposes of this Subpart, when the fuselage, the hull or a similar structure of an aircraft, other than a balloon, is scrapped, the aircraft is deemed to be destroyed.

Identity — Balloons

201.14 (1) For the purposes of this Subpart, the envelope of a balloon constitutes evidence that establishes its identity.

(2) For the purposes of this Subpart, when the envelope of a balloon is scrapped, the balloon is deemed to be destroyed.

22 (1) The portion of subsection 202.01(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

202.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), it is prohibited to operate an aircraft in Canada unless its assigned marks are visible and are displayed

(2) Subsection 202.01(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(3) Subsection 202.01(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) On receipt of an application in writing, the Minister must issue a written authorization permitting the operation in Canada of an aircraft that does not display its marks in accordance with the Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards if the aircraft is to be operated for the purpose of an exhibition, air show, motion picture production or television production or if the aircraft is to be operated by a police authority.

(4) Section 202.01 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):

(5) It is prohibited to operate an aircraft while displaying markings on the aircraft other than those under which the aircraft is registered.

23 Section 202.02 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Application for Reservation of a Registration Mark

202.02 (1) The Minister must, on receipt of an application for the reservation of a registration mark, made in accordance with the Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards, reserve a registration mark for the applicant.

(2) The reservation of a registration mark expires on the first anniversary of the day on which the mark was reserved.

24 Subsection 202.03(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.03 (1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (2), the mark in respect of a Canadian aircraft includes the nationality mark “C” and the registration mark, which is a combination of

(1.1) The Minister must not assign, as a registration mark for an aircraft, any combination of letters that may be confused with the combinations of letters that are referred to in paragraph 3.6 of Annex 7 to the Convention.

(1.2) A registration mark that was assigned before the coming into force of subsection (1.1), other than a registration mark indicated at paragraph (1)(b), may continue to be displayed on the aircraft.

25 (1) The portion of subsection 202.04(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

202.04 (1) If a continuing certificate of registration has been issued in respect of an aircraft, it is prohibited to remove the marks that are displayed on the aircraft unless

(2) Subsection 202.04(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) If a continuing certificate of registration has been issued in respect of an aircraft, the owner may write to the Minister for permission to change the marks.

26 (1) Subsection 202.05(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.05 (1) If an aircraft is a former military aircraft or a replica of a military aircraft, the Minister must, on receipt of an application made in accordance with the Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards, authorize an alternative size or location for the display of its marks.

(2) Subsection 202.05(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) If, under subsection (1), the Minister authorizes an alternative size or location for the display of the marks of an aircraft, the marks must be displayed accordingly.

27 Section 202.07 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.07 (1) If a manufacturer operates an aircraft in accordance with an authorization referred to in subsection 202.14(1), the manufacturer must

(2) When a manufacturer complies with the requirements set out in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), the aircraft is deemed to be registered with that manufacturer’s registration and the Minister must issue a manufacturer certificate of registration.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister may reserve a block of marks for a manufacturer.

28 Section 202.13 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.13 Except as otherwise authorized under subsection 202.43(1), it is prohibited to operate an aircraft in Canada unless it is registered in Canada, in a contracting state or in a foreign state that has an agreement with Canada that allows an aircraft that is registered in that foreign state to be operated in Canada.

29 Subsections 202.14(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

202.14 (1) On receipt of an application in writing by a manufacturer, the Minister must issue a written authorization permitting the operation of an aircraft in accordance with section 202.07 if

(2) The Minister may specify conditions governing the operation of the aircraft in the authorization.

30 Paragraph 202.15(3)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

31 Section 202.16 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.16 The Minister, on receipt of an application referred to in section 222.16 of the Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards, must register an aircraft and issue to the registered owner a continuing certificate of registration if

32 Sections 202.17 to 202.19 of the Regulations and the reference “[202.20 to 202.24 reserved]” after section 202.19 are replaced by the following:

202.17 (1) The Minister must register an aircraft as a state aircraft if it is a civil aircraft that is owned by and exclusively used in the service of a government in Canada.

(2) The Minister must register an aircraft as a commercial aircraft if

(3) The Minister must register an aircraft as a private aircraft if it is not registered as a state or commercial aircraft.

[202.18 to 202.24 reserved]

33 Section 202.25 of the Regulations and the heading “Issuance of a Certificate of Registration” before it are repealed.

34 Section 202.26 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.26 It is prohibited to operate an aircraft in Canada, other than an aircraft referred to in subsection 202.43(1), or a Canadian aircraft outside Canada unless a valid certificate of registration issued in respect of the aircraft is carried on board the aircraft.

35 Section 202.28 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

36 Section 202.35 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.35 (1) Subject to Subpart 3, if a registered owner of a Canadian aircraft transfers any part of the legal custody and control of the aircraft, the registration of the aircraft and any corresponding certificate of registration are cancelled.

(2) If a registered owner of a Canadian aircraft transfers any part of the legal custody and control of the aircraft, the registered owner or owners must, within seven days after the day on which the transfer is completed, notify the Minister of the transfer in writing.

37 Section 202.36 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.36 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an aircraft is deemed to be registered in the name of a new owner with an interim registration as of the day on which the new owner meets the requirements of section 202.16 of these Regulations, as well as the applicable requirements set out in section 222.36 of the Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards, and the Minister must issue an interim certificate of registration to that owner.

(2) If any part of the legal custody and control of an aircraft deemed to be registered under subsection (1) is subsequently transferred, the aircraft cannot be deemed to be registered with an interim registration in the name of the new owner until it has been registered with a continuing certificate of registration.

(3) If there is a change in the registered owner’s name or address or to any other information contained in the continuing certificate of registration, the aircraft is deemed to be registered with an interim registration on the day on which the applicable requirements set out in section 222.36 of the Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards are met.

(4) The interim registration of an aircraft expires on the earliest of

38 Section 202.37 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.37 (1) The Minister, on receipt of an application that meets the requirements set out in section 222.37 of the Aircraft Marking and Registration Standards, must register an aircraft with a provisional registration and must issue a provisional certificate of registration to the registered owner if the owner of the aircraft

(2) The Minister may specify in a provisional certificate of registration the destination to which and the date or dates on which the aircraft may be operated.

(3) A provisional certificate of registration expires on the earlier of

39 (1) The portion of section 202.38 of the Regulations before subparagraph (b)(ii) is replaced by the following:

202.38 If the legal custody and control of a Canadian aircraft is transferred to a person who is not qualified under section 202.15 to be the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft and the aircraft is not in Canada at the time of the transfer or it is understood by the person transferring legal custody and control that the aircraft is to be exported, the person transferring legal custody and control must

(2) Paragraphs 202.38(c) and (d) of the Regulations are repealed.

40 (1) The portion of subsection 202.42(1) of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

202.42 (1) Sous rĂ©serve de l’article 203.03, il est interdit d’utiliser au Canada un aĂ©ronef immatriculĂ© dans un État Ă©tranger qui s’est trouvĂ© au Canada pendant un nombre total de quatre-vingt-dix jours ou plus dans les douze mois prĂ©cĂ©dant son utilisation, Ă  moins que les conditions suivantes ne soient rĂ©unies :

(2) Subparagraph 202.42(1)(c)(ii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) The portion of subsection 202.42(2) of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) Dans le calcul de la pĂ©riode de quatre-vingt-dix jours, il doit ĂŞtre tenu compte des Ă©lĂ©ments suivants :

41 The portion of subsection 202.57(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) If the document under which a registered owner of an aircraft has legal custody and control of the aircraft ceases to be valid, the registration of the aircraft and any corresponding certificate of registration are cancelled unless the registered owner

42 Paragraph 202.58(1)(d) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

43 Section 202.61 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.61 If the certificate of registration of a Canadian aircraft expires or is cancelled, the Minister may request the owner or last registered owner to remove the Canadian marks from the aircraft and, if the Minister so requests, the owner or last registered owner, as applicable, shall remove the Canadian marks within seven days after the day on which the request is received.

44 (1) The heading before section 202.63 of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Radiation de noms et d’adresses du Registre des aéronefs civils canadiens

(2) Section 202.63 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.63 If a continuing certificate of registration issued in respect of an aircraft is cancelled, the Minister must remove from the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register the name and address of the person under whose name the aircraft was registered.

45 (1) The heading before section 202.64 of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Radiation des renseignements relatifs à l’aéronef du Registre des aéronefs civils canadiens

(2) Section 202.64 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

202.64 (1) In the case of a certificate of registration of an aircraft that is cancelled, the Minister may remove the particulars in respect of the aircraft from the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register if any part of the legal custody and control of the aircraft is transferred to a person who is not qualified under section 202.15 to be the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft.

(2) The Minister may issue a certificate of deregistration if the particulars in respect of an aircraft have been removed from the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register under subsection (1) and the requirements set out in paragraph 202.38(a) have been met.

46 (1) The portion of subsection 202.69(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

202.69 (1) The Minister must establish, maintain and publish a register of aircraft, to be known as the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register, in which the Minister must enter, in respect of each Canadian aircraft for which a continuing certificate of registration is issued,

(2) Paragraph 202.69(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

47 The heading “Subpart 3 — Operation of a Leased Aircraft by a Non-Registered Owner” before section 203.01 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Subpart 3 — Authorized Operation of a Leased Aircraft by a Non-Registered Owner

48 (1) The definition leasing operation in section 203.01 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

leasing operation
means the operation of an aircraft under this Subpart by a person who is not the aircraft’s registered owner; (utilisation d’aéronefs loués)

(2) The portion of the definition lease in section 203.01 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

lease
 means an agreement in respect of an aircraft that

49 Subsection 203.02(2) of the Regulations is repealed.

50 Subsection 203.03(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subject to section 203.08, the Minister must, on receipt of an application from a Canadian air operator that conforms with Standard 223 – Standards Respecting the Operation of a Leased Aircraft by a Non-Registered Owner and that includes evidence that establishes that the Canadian air operator meets that standard, issue a written authorization to the Canadian air operator permitting the operation of an aircraft in one of the following ways, as part of a leasing operation, specifying in the authorization any conditions governing the operation that are necessary to ensure aviation safety:

51 (1) The heading before section 203.09 of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Présentation du contrat de location signé

(2) Section 203.09 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

203.09 A Canadian air operator that has been issued an authorization by the Minister under subsection 203.03(2) must submit to the Minister a signed copy of the lease prior to operating the aircraft.

52 The definition police authority in section 600.01 of the Regulations is repealed.

Coming into Force

53 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

SCHEDULE

(Section 11)

SCHEDULE II

(Sections 104.01 and 104.02 and paragraph 104.06.1(1)(a))

Aircraft Registration
Item

Column I

Document or Preparatory Action in Respect of Which a Charge Is Imposed

Column II

Charge ($)
1 Reservation of a registration mark 140
2 Reservation of a particular registration mark 270
3 Issuance of a certificate of registration, in respect of
(a) a provisional registration 200
(b) an initial continuing registration 450
(c) a continuing registration for a transfer of legal custody and control 400
(d) a remotely piloted aircraft registration 10
4 Renewal of a registration mark reservation before expiry 70
5 Authorization to use an alternate registration mark size, display a registration mark in an alternate location or use any other variance from the specifications for registration marks 500
6 Authorization to operate an aircraft in Canada that does not display a registration mark 200
7 Change of a registration mark after the issuance of a continuing registration 650
8 Issuance of a blank replacement interim certificate of registration 109

SCHEDULE III

(Sections 104.01 and 104.02)

Aircraft Leasing
Item

Column I

Document or Preparatory Action in Respect of Which a Charge Is Imposed

Column II

Charge ($)
1 Issuance of an authorization permitting the operation of an aircraft as part of a leasing operation, to
(a) a Canadian air operator that leases a Canadian aircraft from another Canadian air operator (CAR 203.03(2)(a)) 520
(b) a foreign air operator that leases a Canadian aircraft from a Canadian air operator or Canadian aircraft manufacturer (CAR 203.03(2)(b)) 1,200
(c) a Canadian air operator that leases an aircraft that is registered in a foreign state (CAR 203.03(2)(c)) 995

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

  • contain personal information
  • contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
  • express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
  • contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
  • contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
  • constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
  • encourage or incite any criminal activity
  • contain external links
  • contain a language other than English or French
  • otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that communication by email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.