Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 159, Number 52: Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft Protection)

December 27, 2025

Statutory authority
Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

The Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (MVSR) currently incorporate by reference outdated vehicle immobilization system standards for theft protection that have newer versions available, and that are not aligned with the latest updates to international vehicle theft standards. Amendments to the MVSR are needed to refer to the latest versions of these standards.

Background

Under the MVSR, the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standardfootnote 1 114 — Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (CMVSS 114) has requirements for vehicle immobilization systems (hereafter referred to as immobilization systems), which assist in preventing the unauthorized use of a vehicle. Such a device, when armed, prevents the activation of a control unit, such as the engine control unit, the fuel control unit, or the ignition control unit. To disarm the system, a coded key, a keypad, or a remote device is required.

Requirements for immobilization systems were originally included in the MVSR in 2005, with a mandatory compliance effective in 2007. With the exception of a walk-in van and an emergency vehicle, these requirements applied to every passenger car, every three-wheeled vehicle, and every multi-purpose passenger vehicle and truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4 536 kg or less that is imported to Canada or manufactured in one province and sold in another.footnote 2

CMVSS 114 was amended in 2011 to allow new and emerging technologies, such as keyless entry, remote start systems and key replacement systems.

CMVSS 114 currently prescribes that immobilization systems must be designed to meet one of four equivalent options. The requirements set parameters that must be met, as well as restrictions and limitations to avoid being able to disable the immobilization system functions within certain criteria, amongst other specifications and tests, in order to ensure the immobilization systems are robust and resistant to theft.

Four immobilization system standards are currently listed in subsection (4) of CMVSS 114; however, significant changes have been made to each of them:

  1. National Standard of Canada (CAN)/Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada (ULC) S338-98 (May 1998), also known as CAN/ULC-S338-98 — hereinafter referred to as CAN/ULC 1998 standard. This standard was developed by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada.
    • CAN/ULC 1998 standard was updated twice, in 2023 and in 2025. The 2023 version adds a new category titled “electronic attack tools” that manufacturers may use to test vehicle immobilization systems, and the 2025 version includes imperial units in addition to existing metric units throughout this standard. The new standard ANSI/CAN/UL/ULC 338:2025 — hereinafter referred to as the CAN/ULC 2025 standard — was developed by the Underwriters Laboratories Standards & Engagement.footnote 3 The standard is accredited by the Standards Council of Canada and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI);footnote 4 therefore, the implementation of both systems of units of measurements was incorporated in CAN/ULC 2025 standard to accommodate the U.S. system of units of measurements.
  2. Part III of United Nations Regulation (UN Regulation) No. 97 (August 8, 2007). This standard was developed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).
    • In 2021, UN Regulation No. 97 was updated and consolidated into a new UN Regulation No. 162. The new standard sets out requirements for immobilization systems so that they cannot be easily disabled by attackers. Both the administrative changes of UN Regulation No. 97 and the safety provisions for digital keys (a device to prevent the unauthorized use of a vehicle) in UN Regulation No. 116 are included in UN Regulation No. 162.
  3. Part IV of UN Regulation No. 116 (February 10, 2009). This standard was developed by the UNECE.
    • As noted above, UN Regulation No. 116 was updated and consolidated into a new UN Regulation No. 162.
  4. Requirements set out in subsections (8) to (21) of Part II of Schedule IV to the MVSR – hereinafter referred to as subsections (8) to (21) of CMVSS 114. This option in CVMSS 114 was developed by Transport Canada (TC).

Since the last amendment to CMVSS 114 in 2011, updates have been made to CAN/ULC 1998 standard, and UN Regulations Nos. 97 and 116 were updated and consolidated into a new UN Regulation No. 162.

Mainly, more advanced attack tools have emerged and represent new vehicle theft methods over the more rudimentary tools that were commonplace when CMVSS 114 was last updated (i.e. methods/tools that criminals could use to break into a vehicle, such as a screwdriver and wire cutters). These advanced attack tools, often referred to as electronic attack tools, can include devices such as on-board diagnostics key programmers (i.e. tools used to program new or replacement car keys by plugging into the on-board diagnostics port of a vehicle), emulators (i.e. devices that allow a user to mimic or emulate car keys for certain vehicle models), and key signal relay equipment (i.e. tools that allow a thief to capture the car key’s signal and transmit it, allowing a second thief near the vehicle to transmit the signal to a receiver and start the vehicle).

With the rise in vehicle theft seen since 2021, the Government of Canada held a National Summit on Combatting Auto Theft on February 8, 2024, where discussions were held with a focus on identifying solutions to the growing challenge of auto theft in Canada. Based on the conclusions of this summit, a National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft was released, which outlines various measures and initiatives that will be carried out by the federal government in cooperation with provincial and territorial governments and their partners, in accordance with their respective roles, priorities and responsibilities. Among the actions in the National Action Plan, TC identified the opportunity to update CMVSS 114, as it currently incorporates outdated vehicle immobilization system standards for theft protection, and given the increased use of new electronic attack tools as a vehicle theft method. This also allows CMVSS 114 to align with the latest updates to the international standards for immobilization systems discussed above.

Objective

The objective of the proposed regulatory amendments is to replace references to outdated vehicle immobilization system standards with more recent versions that align with the latest international immobilization system standards for theft protection.

Description

The proposed amendments would replace existing references to outdated vehicle immobilization system standards with newer versions. Specifically,

CAN/ULC 338 standardfootnote 5

The proposed amendments would replace the static incorporation by reference standard CAN/ULC 1998 standard, with a static reference to the CAN/ULC 2025 standard. The CAN/ULC 2025 standard would add a new category titled “electronic attack tools” that manufacturers may use to test vehicle immobilization systems, and include imperial metric units in addition to existing metric units throughout this standard. Given the CAN/ULC 2025 standard still meets the needs of this regulatory proposal to modernize CMVSS 114, while also implementing the collaborative efforts between the American and Canadian standards bodies, the 2025 version (instead of the 2023 version) is being proposed for incorporation into CMVSS 114.

United Nations Regulation No. 162

The proposed amendments would adopt the general and particular specifications set out in section 5 of the UN Regulation No. 162, through ambulatory incorporation by reference of the 00 series of amendments. This UN Regulation sets out requirements for immobilization systems so that they cannot be easily disabled by attackers using more advanced attack tools. The requirements set parameters that must be met, as well as restrictions and limitations to avoid being able to disable the immobilization system functions within certain criteria, amongst other specifications and tests — ensuring the immobilization systems are robust and resistant to theft. UN Regulation No. 162 includes the latest administrative changes to UN Regulation No. 97 (e.g. text was updated to refer to UN Regulation No. 48 on lighting that TC already incorporates by reference in CMVSS 108, which also deals with vehicle lighting), and the safety provisions for digital keys (a device to prevent unauthorized use of a vehicle) in UN Regulation No. 116. Its incorporation by reference into the MVSR would simplify compliance with CMVSS 114 for manufacturers.

Modifications would be incorporated into the proposed regulatory amendments, including the definition of certain terms (e.g. the word “rapidly” would mean less than five minutes and the expression “time consuming” would mean at least five minutes) to ensure consistent application of terminology between UN Regulation No. 162 and CAN/ULC 2025 standard; the exclusion of aftermarket and cybersecurity requirements (as they are not within the scope of these amendments); and the adaptation of the UN Regulation No. 162 from a type-approval to a self-certification regime.

Canada has a self-certification regulatory system, which means companies are responsible for certifying that all new vehicles and equipment that fall within the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA) comply with Canada’s MVSR and applicable CMVSS. TC monitors and enforces compliance with the MVSA’s regulations and standards in three main ways: compliance testing, compliance audits, and defect investigations and recalls.

Type-approval systems require that a company obtain approval from a government authority certifying that its vehicles meet all associated UN Regulations before its vehicles are allowed to be sold on the market. A manufacturer submits a product to be tested by a government accredited testing laboratory, and the results are approved by the government. This approval is necessary to sell vehicles in the country.

Repeal of outdated requirements

The proposed amendments would repeal the requirements under subsections (8) to (21) of CMVSS 114 (developed by Transport Canada), and references to UN Regulations No. 97 and No. 116. As new references to CAN/ULC 2025 standard and UN Regulation No. 162 would be made in the MVSR, the fourth immobilization system standard option currently in CMVSS 114 — that is, subsections (8) to (21) of CMVSS 114 — would become obsolete, and therefore should be repealed, given it includes outdated sections. Most importantly, the list of attack tools in subsections (8) to (21) does not include electronic attack tools used to test vehicle immobilization systems. This option could be updated, but it would result in a Canadian-specific standard. A survey of manufacturers was conducted regarding the different immobilization system standard options currently used to comply with CMVSS 114, and it showed that only one manufacturer was using subsections (8) to (21). Further discussion indicated that this one manufacturer still using such subsections could easily comply with the requirements of the other standard options proposed to be adopted as part of this regulatory amendment. Additionally, updating this standard would create redundancies, in comparison to the other newer standards which would be incorporated by reference. Likewise, because UN Regulation No. 162 consolidates the requirements currently found in UN Regulations No. 97 and No. 116, references to these regulations would also be repealed.

Imported vehicles

The proposed amendments would update the reference from CAN/ULC 1998 standard in subsection 12.1(2)(c) of the MVSR, to CAN/ULC 2025 standard, which would ensure imported vehicles meet, or are modified to meet the Canadian safety requirements, aligning with the proposed amendments to CMVSS 114.

Transition period

The proposed amendments would provide a two-year transitional period for mandatory compliance with the proposed regulatory amendments.

Incorporation by reference

When an incorporation by reference to a UN Regulation or other industry standard is made, there are specific considerations. For example, when incorporating a UN Regulation, text must be adapted to reflect the difference between who will be conducting the testing, i.e. a test laboratory for type-approval versus a manufacturer and/or the compliance/enforcement branch of TC in self-certification. In addition, consideration must be given to how the regulation is incorporated by reference within the CMVSS (i.e. with either a static or ambulatory reference).footnote 6

For CAN/ULC 2025 standard, a static incorporation would be made so that TC can assess any future changes to the standards, which would typically be substantial from one version to another, and consult with stakeholders before implementing any substantial changes in these standards through regulation.

An ambulatory reference would be made to UN Regulation No. 162 within the 00 series. Under the policies and procedures for the development of a UN Regulation, only minor, administrative, or editorial changes are allowed within a series of amendments. If substantive changes are to be made, a new series of amendments would be created (i.e. the 00 series would end, and a new 01 series would begin — regulatory changes would be required in the future to implement a new series of amendments). This would, again, allow TC to consult with stakeholders before implementing any substantial changes in these standards through regulation.

Given the adaptations discussed above, both the UN Regulation No. 162 and CAN/ULC 2025 standard are considered to provide equivalent safety outcomes with respect to immobilization system requirements. This regulatory proposal would allow manufacturers to comply with either standard.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Consultation and list of stakeholders

A consultation, entitled “Updating Canada’s theft protection options for new vehicles,” was published on TC’s “Let’s Talk Transportation” platform and was open from May 20, 2024, to July 19, 2024.

Notification of the consultation was sent to a range of stakeholders representing

The consultation was also open and available to anyone with Internet access.

Comments were received from 11 stakeholders representing vehicle industry associations, insurance companies, automotive aftermarket repair and maintenance associations, vehicle identification number (VIN) verification authorities, national anti-fraud organizations, and the Canadian public.

“Let’s Talk Transportation” consultation outcomes

Industry groups were generally in favour of requiring companies to comply with the newest versions of immobilization system standards currently listed in CMVSS 114 and were appreciative of the benefits of updating the static incorporation by reference for each standard to their respective latest version.

It was also indicated that the immobilization system standards currently referenced in CMVSS 114 would not significantly reduce auto theft linked to organized crime. In addition, respondents noted that the UN Regulations (the updates to UN Regulations No. 97 and No. 116, and the introduction of UN Regulation No. 162) and the National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC 338 introduced over the past years have tended to be administrative in nature and intended to simplify, make clear or consolidate existing requirements, and were not introduced with the intent of improving the performance of immobilization systems for theft protection.

TC does not anticipate that updating the standards would impact original equipment manufacturer (OEM) designs, as TC is aware that manufacturers are already taking new and emerging technologies used for theft into consideration in the design of their new vehicles. The updated standards do not prescribe new tests; however, manufacturers may voluntarily change or add new theft tools to their existing test procedures to achieve a degree of confidence in the self-certification of their immobilization system under CMVSS 114. Although testing against all possible attack tools is not required, referencing CAN/ULC 2025 standard and UN Regulation No. 162 would broaden the list of attack tools to be considered by vehicle manufacturers in the self-certification of their immobilization systems. The broad list of attack tools would highlight the benefits of testing immobilization systems against both low-tech and new and emerging technologies that could be used to tamper with a vehicle.

The groups noted that an appropriate amount of transition time would be necessary to accommodate any amendments that would impact OEM designs and/or compliance verification processes. In response, the proposed amendments would include a two-year transitional provision to allow manufacturers ample time to update their compliance documentation.

As part of the consultation, TC requested feedback on how the references to the standards should be made (ambulatory versus static references). Stakeholders indicated that they would need to be made aware of, and given the opportunity to comment on, the incorporation of any new revisions to the incorporated standards (CAN/ULC 338 standard and UN Regulation No. 162).

Consequently, this proposal would make a static reference for CAN/ULC 2025 standard and an ambulatory reference for UN Regulation No. 162 within the 00 series only, to allow for consultation with stakeholders before implementing any substantial changes in these standards through regulation in the future.

Regarding specific immobilization system standards listed in CMVSS 114, industry groups were generally in favour of updating the reference to CAN/ULC 1998 standard (May 1998) to the newest version and incorporating UN Regulation No. 162 (00 series) to replace UN Regulations No. 97 and No. 116.

Additional industry consultation outcomes

Targeted consultations with industry stakeholders took place on December 4, 2024, as a follow-up to the online “Let’s Talk Transportation” consultation.

Stakeholders indicated that any time a regulatory amendment is made, they require a minimum two-year transitional period to assess and implement the changes to the regulation. This allows adequate time for mandatory compliance with the new standards after the regulations come into force when published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. TC understands that this additional time is needed for manufacturers to certify compliance of new model year vehicles when regulatory changes are enacted. Therefore, a two-year transitional period is being proposed for mandatory compliance with the proposed amendments.

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 proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect and no implications or impacts on modern treaties are identified.

Following the completion of the assessment of modern treaty implications, no adverse impacts on potential or established Indigenous or treaty rights, which are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, were identified.

Affected stakeholders, subject to and required to comply with the proposed amendments, are the companies as defined under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and importers. These proposed amendments are expected to benefit all Canadians by introducing more modern standards for immobilization systems.

Instrument choice

As part of the “Let’s Talk Transportation” consultation, TC was considering memoranda of understanding (MOUs) as an alternative tool to regulations. However, none of the stakeholders (i.e. insurance groups and vehicle manufacturer associations) supported TC engaging vehicle manufacturers through a voluntary MOU, as prior to the adoption of CMVSS 114, a previous attempt in 2002 to negotiate a voluntary MOU on immobilization systems failed due to some manufacturers’ reluctance to accept the proposed requirements.

Instead, stakeholders recommended formal requirements to ensure parties are complying with the standards. In order to achieve the commitment of the Government under the National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft, regulatory intervention is needed to amend the MVSR to incorporate new and updated standards for vehicle immobilization systems, and repeal obsolete standards options.

Regulatory analysis

The proposed amendments would be anticipated to result in costs to approximately 45 companies associated with updating their documentation in alignment with the updated/new standards. In total, this would be expected to result in present value costs of $0.80 million over the 10-year time frame from 2026 to 2035 (discounted at a 7% rate in 2024 Canadian dollars).

Analytical framework

The costs and benefits of the proposed amendments have been assessed in accordance with Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), which can be found through the Cabinet Directive on Regulation: 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 amendments are assessed based on a comparison of the baseline scenario with the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government of Canada does not implement the proposed amendments. The regulatory scenario provides information on the expected outcomes as a result of the proposed amendments. Note that some values presented in the text may not add up exactly to totals due to rounding. Costs and benefits are considered for domestic stakeholders only; any costs or benefits to foreign stakeholders are considered outside the scope of this analysis.

The analysis estimates the impact of the proposed amendments over a 10-year period, from 2026 to 2035. Unless otherwise stated, all costs are expressed in 2024 Canadian dollars and are discounted to the base year of 2026 at a 7% discount rate.

The formula used to calculate annualized values under the “Benefits and costs” section, and the small business lens follows the methodology prescribed in Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals, where impacts occurred in the first period are undiscounted.

Affected stakeholders

The proposed amendments would be anticipated to impact approximately 45 companies.footnote 7 These manufacturers are either Canadian, or have an existing Canadian entity to the brand, and therefore would fall within the scope of the analytical framework.

TC would not be anticipated to bear any additional costs associated with the proposed amendments relative to current practices.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

Baseline scenario

In the baseline scenario, companies are required to adhere to specific subparts in one of the following four immobilization system standards (see the “Description” section for more details on these standards):

Under these standards, manufacturers are required to document their compliance for each vehicle model and submit the information to TC upon request. Companies will routinely update their documentation related to these immobilization system standards and how their vehicle models meet them. Most companies would continue to follow either the UN Regulations, or CAN/ULC 1998 standard (as listed above this paragraph), except for one company who would be expected to continue following the requirements set out in subsections (8) to (21) of CMVSS 114. The amount of documentation related to immobilization systems recorded and sent to TC varies by manufacturer and model, but it has been estimated to be in the range of 20 to 50 pages on average. Fully completing the documentation is anticipated to take approximately 40 hours per vehicle model.

Regulatory scenario

In the regulatory scenario, manufacturers would be required to adhere to specific subparts in one of the following two standards (as described in the “Description” section):

Under the regulatory scenario, most companies would switch their formatting over to the respective new standard (i.e. those adhering to the UN Regulations No. 97 and No. 116 would switch to the new version of the UN Regulation No. 162, and those adhering to CAN/ULC 1998 standard would switch over to the new CAN/ULC 2025 standard version), and one company would need to switch from the requirements set out in subsections (8) to (21) of CMVSS 114 to the new version of either UN Regulation No. 162, or CAN/ULC 2025 standard. Companies would need to update their records for their existing vehicle models to reflect the new standards; this is not anticipated to result in manufacturing changes, as it is anticipated that manufacturers are already surpassing the standards. Companies would continue to be required to document their compliance for each vehicle model and submit the information to TC upon request. The timing for updating the documentation would remain the same as in the baseline scenario, with the new formatting presented by the new/updated standards. Extra time for ongoing updates would not be required relative to time taken in the baseline scenario.

Benefits and costs

Costs
Costs to industry

The proposed amendments would be anticipated to result in costs to approximately 45 companies, associated with updating their documentation in alignment with the updated/new standards. In total, this would be expected to result in present value costs of $0.80 million over the 10-year time frame, from 2026 to 2035 (discounted at a 7% rate in 2024 Canadian dollars). While companies would be able to make these updates at any time after the final publication of the proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part II, given mandatory compliance would not be required until 2028, all incremental costs are estimated to be borne in that analytical year. Vehicles manufactured before the coming into force of the proposed amendments would not be impacted.

When transitioning to one of the new standards in the regulatory scenario, companies are expected to update their compliance documentation in a way that remains the most similar to their baseline practices. While most companies are using either the United Nations standards or Canada (ULC) standards, one manufacturer that is currently adhering to the requirements set out in subsections (8) to (21) of CMVSS 114 would need to change their documentation to match one of the standards detailed above in the regulatory scenario. It is anticipated that all new documentation would remain in the range of 20 to 50 pages, and that updates would be required for vehicle models at the same points in time as in the baseline scenario. Testing and documenting requirements between the existing and proposed standards are anticipated to be the same on average. TC acknowledges that, given the proposed amendments, some manufacturers may voluntarily change or add new theft protection tools to their existing test procedures as part of the self-certification of their immobilization systems; however, any overall impact or cost across manufacturers is not expected to be significant. References to the proposed new standards are either static or ambulatory, which would indicate a specific series of the standards; any large revisions would require the development of a new series of standards and therefore would not be included in the proposed amendments. Any changes to the referenced standards that occur within the referenced series of documents are not anticipated to result in additional costs for manufacturers, as the changes are not expected to be substantial.

While ongoing documentation related to the standards would be anticipated to be the same as in the baseline scenario, companies would be required to update their documentation to match the new standards once per vehicle model. Note that one vehicle “model” in this context may encompass multiple vehicles with substantially similar parts but may not encompass two trims of the same model, depending on differences (for example two models sharing a name with different engines or features may be classified as two separate “models”). This would result in each manufacturer spending an average of 322 hours (40 hours per model, for an average of 8 models per manufacturer)footnote 8 updating their compliance documentation in 2028, upon the coming into force of the proposed amendments.

To ensure that costs to stakeholders are not underestimated, the time estimate used in the analysis assumes full start-to-finish compliance documentation, which would allow manufacturers to change which standard they are adhering to should they choose to do so. Most manufacturers would be expected to continue to adhere to the standard they had adhered to in the baseline scenario, which could reduce the total time required to update the compliance documentation. These time estimates should therefore be viewed as upper-bound estimates. For this reason, lower-bound time estimates for updating compliance documentation have been presented in the sensitivity analysis section.

Manufacturers would be assumed to employ a transportation engineer making $63.18 per hourfootnote 9 (including 25% overhead) for this task. Total costs for this would be anticipated to equal $0.80 million. There would not be any expected costs carried for changing manufacturing processes as a result of the proposed amendments. All changes to the standards are anticipated to be administrative in nature (not requiring manufacturing updates).

Costs to Government

TC would not be anticipated to request access to documentation related to immobilization systems any more frequently than is currently done. TC would therefore not be anticipated to incur any incremental costs related to the proposed amendments. TC compliance and enforcement staff would be updated before the registration of the proposed amendments; therefore, any costs with updating these staff would fall outside of the scope of the analysis. Additionally, the proposed updates to the referenced standards are very similar to the existing standards, so there is not anticipated to be much effort required for familiarization. TC also does not anticipate additional costs associated with enforcement/compliance testing.

Benefits

Referencing the latest versions of these standards would ensure Canada’s regulations align with what is being done internationally in terms of preventing vehicle theft, especially with European countries referencing the UN Regulations. While Canadian manufacturers exceed the standards, referencing more updated versions instills further confidence in consumers that Canadian manufactures conform to a minimum industry standard for theft protection systems in new cars in Canada.

Sensitivity analysis

It is anticipated that the amount of effort required to update compliance documentation would be lower for those adhering to the UN Regulation No. 97 and No. 116, as these existing regulations are more similar to UN Regulation No. 162 relative to other options. Given uncertainty around how many manufacturers are adhering to the UN Regulations in the baseline scenario, the average time for updating compliance documentation could be the same, or lower than the estimate provided in the central analysis. This potential lower time estimate would only apply to the 44 manufacturers that are not currently adhering to the standards directly set out in CMVSS 114. The table below shows how the total costs would change if the average time for updating documentation per model for the 44 out of 45 manufacturers were reduced from 40 hours to either 32 or 24 hours.

Table 1: Sensitivity analysis: Average time for updating compliance documentation
Average hours per model for updating compliance documentation 40 hours (central scenario) 32 hours 24 hours
Total cost $0.80 million $0.64 million $0.49 million

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the proposed amendments would not impact Canadian small businesses. None of the impacted manufacturers meet the definition of “small business,” which is a business with fewer than 100 employees or less than $5 million in annual gross revenues.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies, since there would be an incremental increase in the administrative burden on business, and the regulatory proposal is considered a burden under the rule. No regulatory titles would be repealed or introduced. All costs captured in the “Benefits and costs” section are anticipated to be administrative in nature. There would not be any anticipated additional ongoing administrative costs associated with the proposed amendments. As well, there would not be anticipated costs related to industry updating their documentation pertaining to standards following the initial transition relative to the baseline scenario. This is because, while UN Regulation No. 162 is an ambulatory reference, it designates a specific series of that standard that would not undergo substantial changes. Substantial changes would require a new series of documents to be released; therefore, a new series would not be incorporated by reference in the proposed amendments.

As per the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, the assessment of administrative impacts was conducted for a period of 10 years commencing from the registration of the proposed amendments. All values listed in this section are presented in 2012 dollars, discounted to 2012 at a rate of 7%.

Using the 2012 adjusted wage rate for a transportation engineer of $47.79 per hour, including 25% overhead, it is estimated that manufacturers would incur annualized administrative burden costs of $33,374, resulting in an annualized cost of $742 per business for the 45 companies, related to spending 322 hours completing this task in 2028.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Regulation and the Policy on Regulatory Development, analysis was undertaken to identify regulatory approaches being used in other international jurisdictions to determine where regulatory cooperation or alignment may be possible, while meeting the desired public policy objective. This analysis focused on regulations in place or under development for adoption in the United States, Europe, and internationally. More specifically, Canada’s long-standing practice has been to consider alignment with U.S. standards, where they are compatible with Canadian requirements, given the integrated nature of the North American automotive market and manufacturing platform.

That said, this particular theft protection regulation is unique. While the MVSA explicitly mandates the inclusion of an immobilization system in subparagraph 114 of Part II of Schedule IV to the Regulations (also known as CMVSS 114), making it a compulsory component rather than an optional one, the United States has a different approach where vehicles must meet a parts-marking requirement under Part 541 — Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Of note, in 2016, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) brought its theft protection requirements into closer alignment with Canada with its Final Rule adopting Canada’s immobilization system requirements as the “exemption option” that can be afforded to manufacturers under Part 543. Under Part 543 — Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, manufacturers may request and be granted an exemption from the parts-marking requirement if they install an immobilization system that is proven effective to the satisfaction of the NHTSA. Only one model line per year, per manufacturer, may be granted an exemption. TC does not expect these regulatory amendments to cause any issues from an alignment perspective.

Additionally, the current Canadian regulations incorporate by reference the UN Regulations No. 97 and No. 116 and aim to incorporate by reference UN Regulation No. 162. Under the 1958 Agreement of the UNECE,footnote 10 UN Regulation No. 162 is implemented for immobilization system standards by countries such as France, Great Britain, Germany, Australia, and Japan, among others. Therefore, the incorporated standards are in harmonization with other UNECE-adopting countries under the 1958 Agreement.

Finally, although this regulatory proposal has specific Canadian requirements that differ from existing regulations or standards in other jurisdictions, this proposed regulatory amendment only includes modifications to a UN Regulation to adapt it from a regulation written for a type-approval system (seen in Europe and other countries) to one that can be implemented in Canada’s self-certification system.

International obligations

The regulatory proposal itself is not linked to any international agreements or obligations with the exception of the 75-day prepublication period that is recommended under the regulatory practices and enhanced rules on transparency of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.footnote 11

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment and the TC Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment (2024), the strategic environmental and economic assessment process was followed for this regulatory proposal and a Climate, Nature and Economy Lens was completed.

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

Gender-based analysis plus

This regulatory proposal requires vehicle manufacturers to update their compliance documents to reflect the updates to the standards. This regulatory initiative is not expected to have differential impacts on any particular group.

A gender-based plus (GBA+) analysis was completed, and the proposed amendments are not expected to have any negative impacts on any group of people with notable gender and demographic characteristics. No long-term negative impacts are expected, nor any substantial direct or indirect benefits on any particular group within the GBA+ analysis.

TC has evaluated previous feedback from the public and stakeholders on the “Let’s Talk Transportation” platform and there were no concerns expressed by industry stakeholders or the public regarding the possible consequences of the regulatory proposal on different groups.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The proposed amendments would come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, with a compliance date two years after the date of publication.

Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring that their products conform to the requirements of the MVSR. TC monitors self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. TC also monitors public complaints and may conduct inspections upon receiving information indicating potential violations.

TC may take enforcement actions as prescribed in the MVSA if it determines that a vehicle does not comply with the MVSR.

Contact

Jessey Almeida
Acting Manager, Standards and Regulations
Multi-Modal and Road Safety Programs
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: RegulationsClerk-ASFB-Commisauxreglements@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft Protection) under subsection 11(1)footnote a of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act footnote b.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 75 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 Jessey Almeida, Acting Manager, Standards and Regulations, Multi-Modal and Road Safety Programs, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5 (email: RegulationsClerk-ASFB-Commisauxreglements@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, December 15, 2025

Janna Rinaldi
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft Protection)

Amendments

1 (1) Paragraph 12.1(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations footnote 12 is replaced by the following:

(2) Section 12.1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Transitional Provision

(3) For a period of two years beginning on the day on which these Regulations come into force, a vehicle referred to in paragraph (2)(c) may conform to the requirements of that subsection as it read immediately before the day on which these Regulations come into force.

2 (1) Subsection 114(4) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) With the exception of a walk-in van and an emergency vehicle, every passenger car, every three-wheeled vehicle and every multi-purpose passenger vehicle and truck with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less shall be equipped with an immobilization system that conforms to one of the following sets of requirements as modified by subsection (22), (23) or (24):

(2) Subsections 114(8) to (21) of Schedule IV to the Regulations are repealed.

(3) The portion of subsection 114(22) of Schedule IV to the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

(22) The requirements set out in National Standard of Canada ANSI/CAN/UL/ULC 338:2025, entitled Vehicle Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization System and Aftermarket Installation Requirements (June 2025), published by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, are modified as follows:

(4) Subsection 114(22) of Schedule IV of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by replacing paragraph (c) with the following:

(5) Subsections 114(23) and (24) of Schedule IV to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(23) The requirements set out in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of United Nations Regulation No. 162 are modified as follows:

Transitional Provision

(24) For a period of two years beginning on the day on which these Regulations come into force, a vehicle referred to in subsection (4) may conform to the requirements of that subsection as it read immediately before the day on which these Regulations come into force.

Coming into Force

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

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.