Vol. 137, No. 30 — July 26, 2003

Regulations Amending the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations

Statutory Authority

Contraventions Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of Justice

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

Parliament passed the Contraventions Act in October 1992 to provide for an alternative to the summary conviction process of the Criminal Code for the prosecution of federal regulatory offences that would be designated as contraventions. Parliament amended the Act in 1996 to allow to incorporate into federal law, provincial and territorial offence schemes so that federal contraventions could be processed under these regimes. The Act, as amended, permits the use of the procedures established under these regimes (format of the ticket, place where voluntary payments can be made, time in which an offender may choose a plea, etc.) for the prosecution of federal contraventions.

The provisions containing the framework to allow the use of provincial and territorial offence schemes are found in sections 65.1 to 65.3 of the Act. Subsection 65.1(1) gives the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations making the offence scheme of a province or territory applicable, with any necessary adaptations, to contraventions committed in that province or territory.

The Application of Provincial Laws Regulations came into force on August 1, 1996. Ontario was the first province where an enforcement authority could use a provincial ticket to prosecute a federal contravention.

On March 23, 2001, the Trial Division of the Federal Court rendered a judgement in Commissioner of Official Languages and Her Majesty concerning the implementation of the Contraventions Act in Ontario. While it did not invalidate the provisions of the Act dealing with the incorporation of provincial regimes, the Court ordered, among other things, the Government to "take the necessary measures, whether legislative, regulatory or otherwise, to ensure that the quasi-constitutional language rights provided by sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code for persons who are prosecuted for contraventions of federal statutes or regulations, are respected."

Amendment

The Courts of Justice Act of Ontario provides that a defendant has the right to require that a proceeding be conducted as a bilingual proceeding. However, the Federal Court held that such a right was not tantamount to the right of an accused to be tried, pursuant to section 530.1 of the Criminal Code, in the official language of his or her choosing.

This amendment remedies this situation. It provides that the laws made applicable to the prosecution of contraventions in Ontario shall be read, with any modifications that the circumstances require, as if section 530 and paragraphs 530.1(a) to (h) of the Criminal Code were contained in those laws. It also clarifies the nature of the services and communications to the public in the context of contraventions being processed under Ontario's regime.

This amendment replaces the amendment that was published in Part I of the Canada Gazette, on March 22, 2003. As this amendment is an extensive departure from the previous proposal, a new publication in the Canada Gazette is needed.

Alternatives

One way to ensure that the language rights of a defendant during the trial be protected would be to abandon the incorporation of the provincial offence scheme of Ontario and proceed under the summary conviction process of the Criminal Code for the prosecution of contraventions in that province. A variant of this approach would be to abandon the incorporation of Ontario's regime and put in force the original procedures found in the Contraventions Act to prosecute contraventions in that province under a strictly federal regime.

Both solutions were set aside as they would prove more onerous than the solution chosen.

Benefits and Costs

This amendment to the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations complies with the Federal Court decision while maintaining in Ontario a system that has been in operation successfully since 1996. The costs associated with this solution were adopted in the Federal Budget of December 2001.

Consultation

This proposed amendment addresses the concerns received following the publication under Part I of the Canada Gazette on March 22, 2003. The Department of the Attorney General of Ontario was informed of this new proposal.

Compliance and Enforcement

Compliance to these amended Regulations is not an issue as the amendment purports to ensure that contravenors will have, during trials for contraventions under the offence scheme of Ontario, the same language rights as if they had been prosecuted pursuant to the summary conviction process of the Criminal Code.

Contact

For further information concerning these Regulations please contact: Michel Gagnon, Director, Contraventions Project, Department of Justice, 284 Wellington Street, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0H8, (613) 998-5669 (Telephone), (613) 998-1175 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 65.1 (see footnote a)  of the Contraventions Act (see footnote b) , proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Michel Gagnon, Director of the Contraventions Project, Department of Justice, 284 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8.

Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.

Ottawa, July 24, 2003

EILEEN BOYD
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE APPLICATION OF PROVINCIAL LAWS REGULATIONS

AMENDMENT

1. Part I of the schedule to the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations (see footnote 1)  is amended by adding the following after section 2:

3. Any administrative service or communication arising from the application of section 5.1, 7 or 17.1 of the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario shall be provided in the same manner as if the service or communication were provided from an office or facility of a federal institution under section 22 of the Official Languages Act where there is significant demand under that section for such a service or communication in both official languages.

4. The laws made applicable by this Part shall be read, with any modifications that the circumstances require, as if section 530 and paragraphs 530.1(a) to (h) of the Criminal Code were contained in those laws.

COMING INTO FORCE

2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[30-1-o]

Regulations Amending the Laurentian Pilotage Tariff Regulations

Statutory Authority

Pilotage Act

Sponsoring Agency

Laurentian Pilotage Authority

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The Laurentian Pilotage Authority (the Authority) is responsible for administering, in the interest of safety, an efficient pilotage service within Canadian waters in and around the Province of Quebec, north of the northern entrance to Saint-Lambert Lock, except the waters of Chaleur Bay, south of Cap d'Espoir in latitude 48 degrees 25 minutes 08 seconds N, longitude 64 degrees 19 minutes 06 seconds W. The Authority also prescribes tariffs of pilotage charges that are fair and reasonable and consistent with providing revenues sufficient to permit the Authority to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis.

The proposed general increase is 2.95 percent, effective January 1, 2004. The cancellation charge has been adjusted to effect a pilot contract cost recovery of this item, as is the case with the detention charge in respect of which the maximum charge has been removed. These adjustments total $15,000 in one year. The increase and adjustments take into account loan repayments, the costs arising from pilot contract application adjustments and the projected rate of inflation. The tariff increase is consistent with the Authority's corporate plan objectives.

Alternatives

Costs have been reduced where feasible and kept to the minimum consistent with maintaining a safe and effective service.

Benefits and Costs

The tariff increase for the year 2004 will generate additional revenue estimated to be in the order of $1,150,000. This represents an increase in the pilotage charges of approximately $87.00 per trip for the year 2004 for a ship transiting the St. Lawrence River between the pilot boarding stations at Les Escoumins and Montréal, i.e. 262 nautical miles.

The tariff increase is necessary to meet anticipated costs for 2004. This initiative will ensure the continued efficiency of the pilotage service and the Authority's capability to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis that is both fair and reasonable.

This proposed amendment does not have any impact on the environment.

Consultation

The Authority held meetings with the main industry groups during April, May, June and July 2003 concerning the rates of increase for pilotage tariffs proposed for next year. The industry indicated to the Authority that it would accept the proposed increase provided the Pilotage Authority undertook to provide timely and quality effected pilotage services and operate in accordance with the policy statements as set out by the Canadian Transport Agency in Decision #94-W-2001, March 23, 2001, described as follows:

1. A pilotage authority has an imposed public duty to ensure the safety of navigation in Canadian waters under its jurisdiction.

2. A pilotage authority is entitled to receive reasonable compensation for fulfilling the imposed duty of ensuring the safety of navigation.

3. A pilotage authority has a responsibility to organize and provide services in an efficient manner.

4. A pilotage authority has a requirement to be financially self-sufficient and cannot rely upon government appropriations to achieve this.

5. A pilotage authority has the right to establish user charges at a level that enables it to meet the requirement of being financially self-sufficient.

6. User charges set by a pilotage authority are to be fair and reasonable, reflecting only the justifiable costs of providing the service.

The Authority believes it has complied with these directives and will continue to strive towards providing quality and timely services to the users, with the co-operation of the corporation of pilots.

Compliance and Enforcement

Section 45 of the Pilotage Act provides the enforcement mechanism for these Regulations in that a Pilotage Authority can inform a customs officer at any port in Canada to withhold clearance from any ship for which pilotage charges are outstanding and unpaid.

Section 48 of the Pilotage Act provides for penalties if the Regulations are contravened. These include fines of up to $5,000.

Contact

Mr. Jean-Claude Michaud, Chairman, Laurentian Pilotage Authority, 715, Victoria Square, 6th Floor, Montréal, Quebec H2Y 2H7, (514) 283-6320 (Telephone), (514) 496-2409 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 34(1) (see footnote c)  of the Pilotage Act, that the Laurentian Pilotage Authority proposes to make, pursuant to subsection 33(1) of that Act, the annexed Regulations Amending the Laurentian Pilotage Tariff Regulations.

Interested persons who have reason to believe that any charge in the proposed Regulations is prejudicial to the public interest, including, without limiting the generality thereof, the public interest that is consistent with the national transportation policy set out in section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act (see footnote d) , may file a notice of objection setting out the grounds therefor with the Canadian Transportation Agency within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. The notice of objection should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N9.

Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.

JEAN-CLAUDE MICHAUD
Chief Executive Officer
Laurentian Pilotage Authority

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. The portion of subsection 2(1) of the Laurentian Pilotage Tariff Regulations (see footnote 2)  before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

2. (1) A pilotage charge payable to the Authority for a pilotage service set out in column 1 of Schedule 2 that is provided in a district set out in column 2 of that Schedule is calculated based on the information provided on the pilotage service form under subsection 7(1) and is equal to the sum of the following:

2. The portion of items 1 to 11 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations in columns 3 to 8 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 3 Basic Charge ($)	Column 4 Charge per Unit ($)	Column 5 Charge per Time Factor ($)	Column 6 Charge per Hour or Part of an Hour ($)	Column 7 Minimum Charge ($)	Column 8 Maximum Charge ($)
1.	N/A N/A	30.25 19.14	14.90 11.01	N/A N/A	773.77 639.85	N/A N/A
2.	348.15	11.46	N/A	N/A	773.77	N/A
3.	269.20	2.89	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
4.	206.03	2.13	N/A	N/A	N/A	400.62
5.	348.15	7.88	N/A	N/A	639.85	N/A
6.	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.00 for first half hour, 80.29 for first hour, including the first half hour, and 80.29 for each subsequent hour	N/A	N/A
7.	348.15	11.46	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
8.	1.5 times the pilotage charges set out in items 1 to 7	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
9.	430.00	N/A	N/A	0.00 for the first hour, 160.58 for the second hour including the first hour, and 80.29 for each subsequent hour1	N/A	N/A
10.	N/A	N/A	N/A	80.29	N/A	N/A
11.	1,797.08	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

¹ The number of chargeable hours of service is calculated from the later of the time for which the pilotage services are requested and the time the pilot reports for pilotage duty until the time of cancellation

COMING INTO FORCE

3. These Regulations come into force on January 1, 2004.

[30-1-o]

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Locking and Immobilization Systems)

Statutory Authority

Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The Department of Transport is proposing to amend Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 114, which is part of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (MVSR). (see footnote 3)  The purpose of the proposed amendment is to require that vehicles be equipped with anti-theft immobilization devices. More specifically, the Department is proposing to require that all vehicles having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 4 536 kg or less have an immobilization system installed that, at the choice of the manufacturer, meets one of the following standards:

— Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada CAN/ULC-S338, "Standard For Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization;" or,

— United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation No. 97, "Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of Vehicle Alarm Systems (VAS) and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm Systems (AS)."

Requiring that vehicles meet one of these standards is expected to improve road safety by reducing vehicle theft, especially theft involving young offenders.

Background

Motor vehicle theft is a significant issue for many Canadians. A report from Standard & Poor's DRI, entitled The Auto Theft Industry — The Cost to Canadians, (see footnote 4)  estimated the direct dollar losses from motor vehicle theft in Canada at $600 million per year. According to Statistics Canada, the rate of motor vehicle theft has grown a dramatic 71 percent since 1988, including a 9.2 percent rise in 1996 alone. Recent statistics indicate that in the year 2001 over 170 000 vehicles were stolen in this country, (see footnote 5)  or more than 460 vehicles each day. The impact of these theft rates is borne out both in injury statistics and in insurance premiums.

Motor vehicles are generally stolen either for profit or for convenience. Theft of vehicles for profit is frequently attributed to organized crime and insurance fraud, whereas theft for convenience is attributed to joyriding. There are many innocent victims when a vehicle is stolen. The vehicle owner, the insurance company, and subsequent owners who unknowingly purchase stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts experience a loss. But more important, thefts by young offenders frequently lead to collisions resulting in serious injury and death.

Anti-theft immobilization devices are systems that prevent 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. In order to disarm the system, a coded key, a keypad or a remote device, is required.

Transport Canada has been working on several fronts to help combat vehicle theft. In addition to this proposal, the Department has been instrumental in setting up procedures to assist in controlling the exchange of vehicle registrations for vehicles that are imported into Canada. This addresses one aspect of vehicle theft: when a stolen vehicle is registered using the registration number of a vehicle destroyed in a collision. With these procedures, it is now possible for provinces to verify if an imported vehicle registration number is for a vehicle destroyed in a collision. It is expected that these procedures will assist in reducing vehicle theft for profit.

Following receipt of a letter from the Insurance Corporation of British Colombia (ICBC) which expressed concern about the ease with which Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) plates could be moved from one vehicle to another, the Department recently proposed revisions to CMVSS 115. According to the proposal, the Department would require that VIN plates be permanently affixed to the vehicle. The introduction of this requirement was proposed to be effective as of September 1, 2006, to provide the industry sufficient time to introduce any required changes.

The Department has completed several studies to better determine the causes and effects of vehicle theft. A report entitled The Assessment of the Potential Effectiveness of Automobile Parts Marking and Anti-theft Measures in Canada (see footnote 6)  was published in 1999. A subsequent report, entitled The Motor Vehicle Theft Problem: Exploration and Development of Future Options, (see footnote 7)  highlighted young offenders as an important road safety issue. Another report, Identification of Youth Theft Occurrences for the City of Toronto, (see footnote 8)  estimated that 43 percent of the vehicle thefts in that city in 1999 were perpetrated by youth. This study further estimated that there would be 20 fatalities in Canada each year as a result of young offender vehicle theft.

In 2000, Transport Canada, in partnership with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Department of Justice's Business Action Program on Crime Prevention, part of the Business Alliance on Crime Prevention, examined a number of issues surrounding vehicle theft including vehicle identification, youth crime and prevention of theft. One of the issues stemming from this review was vehicle parts marking.

In the United States, the Department of Transportation requires, under the Code of Federal Regulations 49, Part 541, that some vehicle lines have several of the vehicle's parts marked with the VIN. Parts marking assists in the identification of a vehicle in cases where the VIN plate has been replaced or destroyed, and when a vehicle has been dismantled with the intent to sell the individual parts. The U.S. regulation extends only to high-theft vehicle lines, and exemptions from the parts marking requirement may be granted to vehicle lines equipped with an effective immobilization system.

Transport Canada reviewed the question of whether vehicles sold in Canada should also be required to have their parts marked. The Department concluded that requiring parts marking on Canadian vehicles would have little effect in improving road safety for Canadians.

While the Department is concerned about reducing vehicle theft that results in property damage, the more significant road safety issue relates to motor vehicle thefts that are committed by youth. Young offenders are involved in a significant portion of motor vehicle thefts in Canada, and joyriding is primarily a youth crime. This type of vehicle theft creates a significant road safety hazard, as young offenders are frequently inexperienced drivers and tend to enjoy taking risks. Peer pressure and thrill seeking appear to motivate many of these thefts, and alcohol often plays a role. These thefts all too often result in injury and death.

As noted previously, the study of youth theft in Toronto estimated that youth theft results in over 20 road fatalities per year in Canada. As this study was a statistical analysis using information from Toronto only, the Department initiated a second study to test the Toronto study results. For this second study, the Department engaged Project 6116, a national committee whose aim is to reduce vehicle theft in Canada, to review actual cases where theft by a youth resulted in injuries to either the vehicle's occupants or innocent bystanders. Final results of the study (see footnote 9)  indicate that there were an average of 27 fatalities and 117 injuries per year in Canada from 1999 to 2001.

It is proposed that this amendment come into force on September 1, 2005.

Alternatives

As youth theft of vehicles poses a significant safety risk to Canadians, the Department is of the opinion that maintaining the status quo is not acceptable. Furthermore, despite the fact that the percentage of vehicle models equipped with an immobilization system has been increasing over the years, not all vehicles are so equipped, which in turn allows for fatalities and injuries to occur.

The Department is constantly seeking alternative means to improve road safety in lieu of formal regulations. At the outset, it was the Department's goal to work with the industry to develop a voluntary vehicle immobilization requirement. At that time, the Department estimated that over 80 percent of new Canadian vehicles offered for sale were already equipped with immobilization systems meeting either one of the two standards mentioned earlier. As fewer than 20 percent of new vehicles would be affected, the Department expected that the industry would be willing to agree to a 100 percent requirement on a voluntary basis, given a two-year lead time. Based on the results of the Project 6116 study, the Department began negotiations in early 2002 with vehicle manufacturers, asking them to agree to a voluntary program for the installation of vehicle immobilization systems by way of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be signed by the industry and the Department. After extensive negotiations, it was determined that a voluntary agreement was not possible because not all the manufacturers were willing to agree to the proposed requirements. The Department thus had no alternative but to propose that the requirement for a vehicle immobilization system be embodied in a regulation.

Benefits and Costs

Because young offenders are often inexperienced drivers and tend to enjoy engaging in risk-taking behaviour, youth theft creates a significant road safety hazard. It is estimated that over 40 percent of persons charged with motor vehicle theft are youth. One study estimated that youth theft results in over 20 road fatalities per year in Canada. A further detailed study indicated that there were an average of 27 fatalities and 117 injuries per year in Canada between 1999 and 2001 resulting from vehicle theft. (see footnote 10) 

Youth theft is a significant issue in all parts of the country. Project 6116 recently noted that in the year 2000 in Manitoba alone, six people were killed and five suffered injuries requiring lifelong care as a result of collisions involving stolen vehicles. Another 68 suffered less serious injuries. (see footnote 11) 

Reviewing data from around the world, an Australian report entitled Principles for Compulsory Immobiliser Schemes (see footnote 12)  indicates that installing an immobilization system does not prevent a vehicle from being stolen in all cases; however, it does reduce the risk by approximately one half. In other words, the report indicates that vehicles equipped with an immobilization system, meeting the Australian Design Rule 82/00: Engine Immobilisers, which incorporates the UNECE Regulation No. 97, are 50 percent less likely to be stolen as vehicles not so equipped. A benefit of this magnitude could save 13 to 15 lives and prevent over 58 injuries each year in Canada.

If a conventional formula is used for calculating the social cost of vehicle theft related incidents (based on current actuarial figures used by the Road Safety Directorate), the dollar value is calculated to be $2.021 million per life and $15,903 per injury. (see footnote 13)  The total annual benefit for preventing vehicle theft related fatalities, based on 15 lives, would be $30,315,000. The total annual benefit for preventing injuries from vehicle theft, based on 58 injuries, would be in excess of $920,000. Together, the total estimated annual benefit for preventing these fatalities and injuries would be in excess of $31,235,000. All dollar values are in 2001 Canadian dollars.

One major vehicle manufacturer supplied the Department with cost estimates of immobilization systems meeting either the CAN/ULC-S338 or the UNECE Regulation No. 97. They quoted the cost for a high-end immobilization system to be between C$26 and C$32 per vehicle. (see footnote 14)  The Department is of the opinion that cost is not a significant factor, since estimates indicate that over 80 percent of the 2001 model year vehicles sold in Canada were already equipped with vehicle theft immobilization systems. (see footnote 15)  Thus, the Department estimates that this proposal will affect fewer than 280 000 of the light-duty vehicles sold in Canada, and, based on C$32 per vehicle, will result in an estimated additional cost of under $9 million.

This proposed amendment would not have any negative impact on the environment.

Consultation

General Road Safety Consultation Programs

The Department has instituted a systematic and extensive consultation process that is intended to keep the automotive industry, public safety organizations and the general public informed of planned and recently made changes to the regulatory requirements governing motor vehicle safety in Canada and that provides a mechanism to comment on these initiatives. Three times a year, departmental representatives meet with the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, whose members include DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc.; Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited; and General Motors of Canada Limited. The Department also meets three times a year with the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC), which represents international manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles. (see footnote 16)  In addition, once a year, the members of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) from the United States meet jointly with the AIAMC, and Canadian and American government officials.

These automotive industry meetings allow manufacturers and importers to respond to proposed changes to the regulations for which the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate is responsible, to raise problems with the existing requirements, and to discuss any matters of concern to the member companies. On a quarterly basis, these associations receive a copy of the Directorate's Regulatory Plan, which outlines all contemplated changes to the governing safety requirements and tracks initiatives as they are developed and published in the Canada Gazette, and as the new regulations come into force.

Specific Vehicle Theft Consultation

As noted, the Department worked for several months to develop a voluntary agreement with the industry for the implementation of vehicle immobilization systems. The work reached an impasse. Some manufacturers were unwilling to commit to a voluntary agreement, citing their preference to continue supplying vehicles to Canada that already meet the U.S. parts marking requirement. The Department was unwilling to accept parts marking as an alternative to vehicle immobilization systems because there is no evidence that parts marking alone would have any effect on youth theft and subsequent joyriding. (see footnote 17)  Some manufacturers also requested that the Department exempt low-volume manufacturers from the immobilization requirements. The Department did not agree with this proposal, as it believes that low-volume production is not justifiable grounds for an exemption from a safety requirement. Further, the Department believes that the general public will expect all vehicles to be equipped with an immobilization system that meets the required performance requirements.

During the MOU development period, the Department received requests from both the Minister of Justice for the Government of Manitoba and from the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), asking that the Department require that all vehicle immobilization systems meet the requirements of the Canadian standard developed by the Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada, CAN/ULC-S338.

As part of the MOU negotiations, the Department had proposed that manufacturers be allowed to install systems meeting either the European requirements or the Canadian developed standard, at the choice of the manufacturer.

While it is estimated that over 80 percent of the 2001 model year vehicles were equipped with immobilization systems, the Vehicle Information Centre of Canada (VICC) estimates that only about 50 percent of 2001 vehicles were equipped with vehicle immobilization systems meeting CAN/ULC-S338. The Department has not been able to determine any significant difference in theft rates between immobilization systems meeting CAN/ULC-S338 and those meeting the European standards. As the Department's goal is the installation of immobilization systems in all light-duty vehicles sold in Canada and as the Department is committed to the global harmonization of vehicle safety regulations, it is proposing that both UNECE Regulation No. 97 and CAN/ULC-S338 be accepted as alternative requirements.

The Department is proposing the European standard as an alternative as it is the only standard for vehicle immobilization systems that is recognized worldwide. Canada, along with over 21 other nations, including Japan, the United States and many European countries, recently signed a global agreement for the harmonization of vehicle regulations. This agreement was signed under the auspices of the UNECE. When a new global regulation for vehicle immobilization systems is developed, the Department would allow it as an alternative.

The Department invites comments on all aspects of this proposal, and specifically invites comments on the proposed alternative standards. Any comments suggesting that one requirement is superior should provide substantiating data.

A consultation period of 75 days will follow the publication of this proposal in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Comments may be made by writing to the address given below. All responses will be taken into consideration in the development of the final amendment.

Compliance and Enforcement

Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. The Department of Transport monitors the self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. When a defect is found, the manufacturer or importer must issue a notice of defect to owners and to the Minister of Transport. If a vehicle does not comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer or importer may be subject to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Contact

For further information, please contact: Dan Davis, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, (613) 998-1956 (Telephone), (613) 990-2913 (Facsimile), davisda@tc.gc.ca (Electronic mail).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote e) , that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 5 (see footnote f)  and subsection 11(1) of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Locking and Immobilization Systems).

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Dan Davis, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 8th Floor, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5. (Tel: (613) 998-1956; fax: (613) 990-2913; e-mail: davisda@tc.gc.ca)

Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.

Ottawa, July 24, 2003

EILEEN BOYD
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (LOCKING AND IMMOBILIZATION SYSTEMS)

AMENDMENTS

1. The portion of item 114 of Schedule III to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 18)  in column II is replaced by the following:

Column I Item (CMVSS)	Column II Description
114	Locking and Immobilization Systems

2. The heading before section 114 of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Locking and Immobilization Systems (Standard 114)

General

3. (1) Section 114 of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.1):

Locking System

(2) Section 114 of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):

Immobilization System

(7) Subject to subsection (8), every vehicle shall be equipped with an immobilization system that meets

(a) the requirements respecting the design, functioning, installation and testing of an electronic immobilization system that are set out in the version of the National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Standard for Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization, published by the Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada (ULC), that is in effect 12 months before the date of manufacture of the vehicle as shown on the vehicle compliance label, or a more recent version, except those requirements

(i) in section 1.6,
(ii) respecting non-OEM systems as defined in section 2,
(iii) respecting local noise regulations, and
(iv) respecting radio frequency interference immunity; or

(b) the requirements respecting the general and particular specifications, operation parameters and test conditions of an immobiliser that are set out in the version of Part III of ECE Regulation No. 97, entitled Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicle Alarm Systems (VAS) and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm Systems (AS), that is in effect 12 months before the date of manufacture of the vehicle as shown on the vehicle compliance label, or a more recent version, except those requirements respecting

(i) aftermarket installation,
(ii) type approval, and
(iii) radio emissions.

(8) Until August 31, 2006, the version of the document referred to in paragraph (7)(b) may be that of May 29, 1998 or a more recent version of that document.

(9) A reference in the National Standard of Canada CAN/ ULC-S338-98 to a "manufacturer of an electronic immobilization system" shall be read as a reference to a "manufacturer".

(10) The instructions required by section 4.1 of the National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98 shall be provided in both official languages.

(11) For the purposes of section 31.10 of ECE Regulation No. 97, the words "at the time of application for type approval" shall be replaced by the words "no later than 12 months before the date of manufacture of the vehicle as shown on the vehicle compliance label".

COMING INTO FORCE

4. These Regulations come into force on September 1, 2005.

[30-1-o]

Footnote a 

S.C. 1996, c. 7, s. 37

Footnote b 

S.C. 1992, c. 47

Footnote c 

S.C. 1998, c. 10, s. 150

Footnote d 

S.C. 1996, c. 10

Footnote e 

S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote f 

S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 351

Footnote 1 

SOR/96-312

Footnote 2 

SOR/2001-84

Footnote 3 

C.R.C., c. 1038

Footnote 4 

The Auto Theft Industry — The Cost to Canadians, Prepared for the Insurance Bureau of Canada by Standard & Poor's DRI, Toronto, Ontario, April 2000.

Footnote 5 

Statistics Canada, Crimes by type of offence, http://www.statcan.ca/english/ Pgdb/legal02.htm

Footnote 6 

The Assessment of the Potential Effectiveness of Automobile Parts Marking and Anti-theft Measures in Canada, Prepared for Transport Canada by Consulting and Audit Canada, Project 560-0838, Ottawa, March 1999.

Footnote 7 

The Motor Vehicle Theft Problem: Exploration and Development of Future Options, Prepared for Transport Canada by Consulting and Audit Canada, Ottawa, October 1999.

Footnote 8 

Identification of Youth Theft Occurrences for the City of Toronto, Prepared for Transport Canada by Michael Parkes, PhD.

Footnote 9 

Fatalities and Injuries as a Result of Stolen Motor Vehicles (1999-2001), Prepared for Project 6116 by Matthew J. Miceli, December 2002.

Footnote 10 

Fatalities and Injuries as a Result of Stolen Motor Vehicles (1999-2001), Prepared for Project 6116 by Matthew J. Miceli, December 2002.

Footnote 11 

Research Proposal: National Study of Young Offender Involvement in Motor Vehicle Theft, Project 6116 National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft, April 2002.

Footnote 12 

Principles for Compulsory Immobiliser Schemes, Prepared for the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council, Prepared by MM Starrs Pty Ltd., ISBN 1 876704 17 9, Melbourne, Australia, October 2002.

Footnote 13 

The 2001 figures for cost of life and cost of injury have been developed by updating the base estimation of $1,500,000 in 1991 dollars, which was made by Transport Canada and updated to the year 2001 by taking into account the gross domestic product (GDP) at basic price cost for the years 1991 to 2001. The GDP at basic price cost was compiled by Statistics Canada, Gross Domestic Product (All Industries), Cat. No. 15-001, 1994; and Transport Canada, Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis in Transport Canada, Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, TP11875E, September 1994.

Footnote 14 

Based on industry-supplied installation cost for factory assembly (2003).

Footnote 15 

2001 Canadian Fleet Immobilization Profile.

Footnote 16 

The AIAMC represents the following automotive manufacturers and importers: BMW Canada Inc., Daewoo Auto Canada Inc., Honda Canada Inc., Hyundai Auto Canada, KIA Canada Inc., Mazda Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc., Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc., Nissan Canada Inc., Porsche Cars Canada Ltd., Subaru Canada Inc., Suzuki Canada Inc., Toyota Canada Inc., and Volkswagen Canada Inc.

Footnote 17 

The Assessment of the Potential Effectiveness of Automobile Parts Marking and Anti-theft Measures in Canada, Prepared for Transport Canada by Consulting and Audit Canada, Project 560-0838, Ottawa, March 1999.

Footnote 18 

C.R.C., c. 1038

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).