An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act

Summary#

This bill changes how the Registrar of Motor Vehicles verifies identity and shares driver and vehicle records. It allows the use of facial recognition and other tools to confirm identity when people apply for or renew licences or ID cards, with strict limits on sharing that data. It also sets clearer rules for who can get driving records, creates a way to request a vehicle’s registration history by VIN, and allows limited data sharing for research with privacy safeguards.

• Authorizes the Registrar to use technological identity checks, including facial recognition software and signature comparisons, for licence and general ID applications, renewals, and photo changes.
• Prohibits sharing identity-verification tools or the information they produce with anyone (including police or GNWT departments) without a warrant or court order, except in suspected identity theft or identity fraud.
• Clarifies how people, insurers, prosecutors, and out-of-territory licensing authorities can request a person’s driving record, and what type of copies they receive; fees apply.
• Lets anyone request a vehicle’s registration history by VIN (vehicle ID number), limited to non-personal details like description, registration dates and municipalities, whether the vehicle is active/unfit/destroyed/rebuilt, and other functionality information. Owner names and other personal information must not be disclosed.
• Allows GNWT and federal public bodies to request information for research or statistics only if necessary and under an information sharing agreement with strong privacy terms; photos, signatures, licence status/class, and vehicle ownership cannot be shared under these agreements.
• Gives the government power to make rules about identity-verification technology and information sharing agreements.
• Repeals subsection 307.1(2) (content not provided).
• Timing: Starts on a date set by the Commissioner.

What it means for you#

• Drivers and ID card holders

  • Your identity may be checked using facial recognition software or signature comparisons when you apply, renew, or change your photo for a driver’s licence or general identification card.
  • Information from these checks cannot be shared without a warrant or court order, unless the Registrar reasonably believes identity theft or identity fraud is involved, in which case it can be given to police.

• People requesting their own driving record

  • You (or your agent) can apply for your driving record and pay a fee.
  • You will receive certified copies of documents created by the Registrar, and plain copies (with written confirmation they match the Registrar’s records) for documents not created by the Registrar.

• Insurers, prosecutors, and other licensing authorities

  • Insurers, the Attorney General in a Canadian jurisdiction, and out-of-territory driver/vehicle licensing departments may request a person’s driving record, with fees and conditions. Some types of documents are excluded for insurers under other sections of the law.
  • If you have an information sharing agreement with the Registrar, you must follow that agreement’s process.

• Car buyers and the public

  • You can request a vehicle’s registration history by VIN and pay a fee. You will get non-personal information about the vehicle’s description, registration dates and municipalities, status (for example, active, unfit, destroyed, rebuilt), and functionality.
  • You will not receive any current or past owner’s personal information.

• Public bodies (GNWT and Government of Canada)

  • You may request information for research or statistical purposes that are in the public interest if it cannot reasonably be done without identifiable information and you have an information sharing agreement with privacy safeguards.
  • Even then, photographs, signatures, licence status, licence class, and vehicle ownership information cannot be disclosed. Any further disclosure you make must be in aggregate or de-identified form.

• Police

  • You generally need a warrant or court order to obtain identity-verification information (including facial recognition outputs). The Registrar may share such information without a warrant only when there is a reasonable belief of identity theft or identity fraud.

• What is unclear

  • The bill does not state the fee amounts.
  • The content of the repealed subsection 307.1(2) is not provided.
  • “Functionality” of a vehicle is not defined in detail.
  • The start date will be set later by order, and some details will be set by future rules.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The government may face costs to acquire and operate identity-verification technology (such as facial recognition), update systems, and train staff.
• Administering vehicle registration history requests and managing information sharing agreements may add workload and system costs.
• Applicants will pay fees for driving records and vehicle registration history requests; amounts are not specified.
• Privacy and security safeguards for research data may require additional technology and oversight.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to prevent identity fraud in driver licensing and general ID by allowing modern tools to verify identity.
• It could improve privacy by strictly limiting the sharing of identity-verification data, requiring a warrant or court order, with a narrow exception for suspected identity crimes.
• It provides clearer, standardized access to driving records, including confirmation that copies match what is on file.
• A VIN-based vehicle registration history could help buyers make safer, more informed choices without exposing owners’ personal information.
• It enables research and statistics in the public interest while setting strong conditions for confidentiality, data destruction, and de-identification.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is privacy and accuracy risks from using facial recognition, including possible false matches or bias.
• The exception allowing sharing with police without a warrant based on “reasonable belief” of identity theft or fraud may be seen as too broad or subjective.
• Many details are left to future rules (what technologies are used, fee levels, processes), which creates uncertainty about real-world impacts.
• The term “functionality” for vehicle history is vague; this could lead to inconsistent information or confusion for consumers.
• Allowing identifiable data for research, even with safeguards, may raise re-identification risks; at the same time, bans on sharing licence status/class and vehicle ownership could limit research usefulness.
• Replacing “certified true copies” with plain copies plus written confirmation might not meet all external requirements (for example, some courts or insurers may still prefer a formal certification), though the bill provides written confirmation to address this.