You're missing the context of Canadian administrative law. As other commenters have noted, "Governor in Council" means the federal Cabinet, but more importantl

You're missing the context of Canadian administrative law. As other commenters have noted, "Governor in Council" means the federal Cabinet, but more importantly than that "regulations made by the Governor in Council" is a magic phrase that allows published, regulatory rulemaking. This works in much the same way as when the US Congress passes a bill that authorizes the EPA to regulate air pollution. This system generally gives greater grants of regulatory authority than the US system. Since Canada has a Westminster form of government based on partial unification of the executive and legislative branches, the executive (Prime Minister / Cabinet) is assumed to always be operating with the confidence of Parliament. (If that isn't the case, Parliament can turf the Prime Minister and by extension Cabinet.) The net result is that while the US has ingrained hostility between legislators and regulatory rulemakers, the situation in Canada is more one of cooperation and delegation. Your concern about "you can always say that this newspaper [etc]" is textually founded, but an important rule in Canadian administrative law is that regulatory grants must be exercised 'reasonably', compatibly with both the text and intended purpose of the legislation. A designation made (or not made) under 27(1) would be subject to judicial review if the denied business so wishes, giving courts the opportunity to weigh in. An arbitrary regulatory ruling made on thin grounds would not survive its day in court.