"Governor in Council" in the Canadian political system is the Cabinet.

Who serve at the will of the PM, he recently just shuffled them around. Recently the government has concentrated and centralized power in remarkable ways that goes largely unnoticed.

This has been the largest trend in western countries since early 2000s (growth in executive/PM power). And Canada wasn't even close to the notorious executive over reach of the US until recently (if anything Canada has long been a better beacon for state-rights/federalism than even the US), but like all Canadian politicians they get jealous of the US system of power.

Im not sure that it goes unnoticed. People are literally asking for it. Not necessarily the particular event you mention but generally for the government to expand power with the expectation that they can do more good.

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.