In Alberta's commercial vehicle regulatory landscape, some trucking companies still consider fines, tickets, and administrative penalties as just another expense—like fuel or rent. However, this corporate mindset is not only outdated but also risky, as the regulatory environment becomes more data rich and enforcement technology advances. Compliance is no longer optional, and treating penalties as a cost of doing business is a flawed corporate approach that needs urgent revision.
The Evolving Enforcement Landscape
Alberta's transportation industry has seen significant technological upgrades in recent years, and with them, the opportunity to write more penalties for non-compliance. A prime example is the Weigh2Go system, which allows real-time data sharing across the highway scale network. These scale bypass systems determine if a truck should be stopped and weighed based on historical data, minimizing human error in enforcement.
Travelling In Alberta you may have noticed the highway scales are never open. That is due to a couple of things:
1 The existing scales are old, and some are located in high traffic corridors like Balzac, AB. Having trucks lined up entering and exiting the scale is a safety issue.
2. Commercial vehicle inspectors are now in the Sherriff’s department, and those officers have expanded powers like firearms, detention and handcuffs.
The Sheriff’s mandate is roadside enforcement that focuses on speeding and impaired driving in addition to commercial vehicles. Roadside penalties are more expensive and roadside officers can write more tickets by targeting speeding trucks rather than sitting at the scale waiting for a violation to roll by. Smaller municipalities are starting to hire enforcement officers, by-law officers or their own police departments like in Grande Prairie, AB. Those officers are all trained or are being trained in commercial vehicle enforcement. To further enhance on-going enforcement the Province of Alberta has just announced: The new Law Enforcement Pathway under the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program (AAIP) is designed to attract experienced and skilled police officers from abroad, addressing both immediate hiring demands and enhancing community safety. It is clear indication that non-compliant companies will find fewer and fewer loopholes to exploit.
ELD Mandate: A Game Changer
The ELD (Electronic Logging Device) mandate is one of the most significant changes in trucking compliance. ELDs create a real-time, transparent RODS (record of duty status), and vehicle inspection reports. With a single data transfer, enforcement officers can instantly review a driver’s RODS and determine whether a driver was in an out-of-service condition. In a collision a roadside officer can assess penalties to the carrier or the driver before a tow truck even arrives. This level of real-time enforcement and transparency will put additional pressure on carriers to be compliant.
The Future of Compliance: More Data, Less Tolerance
The future of Alberta’s commercial vehicle enforcement will be driven by data and automation. Weigh-in-motion scales are already being used enabling enforcement officers to weigh vehicles while they’re on the move. Jurisdictions are updating regulations to allow for the issuing of automatic penalties for overweight vehicles. This would be similar to receiving a red-light camera ticket. This is just the beginning—the enforcement data exchange integration of ECM (Electronic Control Modules) and ELD data will give enforcement agencies access to even more granular information about a truck’s performance and driver’s compliance status.
Imagine a scenario where a truck’s ECM data, combined with real-time ELD logs, is automatically transmitted to an insurance company following an accident. As private insurance companies leave Alberta’s market due to unsustainable market conditions, those that remain will increasingly seek detailed data to assess liability and avoid paying claims. In the near future, insurance companies may demand ELD and ECM data as part of a claims review, further raising the stakes for non-compliant carriers.
The True Cost of Penalties
For carriers that still see fines and penalties as the price of doing business, it’s time for a reality check. The cost of non-compliance is not just about the fines themselves; it’s about the damage to a company’s reputation, increased scrutiny, higher insurance premiums, and potential lawsuits that could sink a business. Every ticket or penalty raises a red flag, and in Alberta’s data-rich environment, red flags are harder to ignore.
Compliance is Your Competitive Edge
Staying up-to-date on regulations and prioritizing compliance isn’t just about avoiding penalties—it’s about staying in business. As insurance and enforcement environments tighten, only carriers with strong compliance programs will be able to avoid the mounting costs associated with non-compliance. Relying on outdated practices and brushing off penalties as a business expense will leave companies vulnerable to everything from hefty fines to insurance claims denial. Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section is not going to help you. It’s enforcement, not education! Give me a call or an email for all of your up to date ELD and NSC compliance education.
In the world of commercial transportation, safety is paramount. To ensure the safety of drivers and other road users, regulations and monitoring programs are essential. One such program is the National Safety Code (NSC), which sets standards for commercial vehicles, drivers, and motor carriers in Canada. This code, though not law, is crucial in guiding provincial and territorial governments in drafting their safety regulations. In Alberta, the regulations are outlined in the Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation, AR 314/2002 (Part 4.1).
NSC Standard 7 is the criteria for carrier and driver profiles. The Carrier Profile system is designed to provide an overview of a carrier's safety performance, encompassing records of infractions, collisions, on-road inspections, and facility audits. This system allows Alberta to monitor carriers' performance and take action against those posing safety risks across North America.
The Carrier Profile acts as a report card for carriers, offering transparency to stakeholders like shippers, insurance companies, and the public. By accessing this information, stakeholders can make informed decisions about engaging with specific carriers, promoting safety and accountability within the industry.
However, there is a critical issue with the reliability of the Carrier Profile data. Despite its intended purpose, there is a significant flaw in data sharing between jurisdictions. Alberta is not accurately capturing enforcement data from other provinces. This oversight means that Alberta trucking companies involved in incidents outside the province may not have their records updated promptly or accurately on their Carrier Profiles.
The implications of this data discrepancy are concerning. Carriers with incomplete or delayed information may not face the necessary interventions or audits, leading to inaccuracies in their risk factor scores. This discrepancy could potentially result in carriers maintaining a clean record, qualifying for insurance discounts, and evading enhanced monitoring or audits due to inaccurate risk assessment.
Moreover, the shortcomings extend to the auditing process itself. TPA (Third Party Auditors) do not have encryption keys and cannot audit unencrypted RODS. TPA (Third Party Auditors) lack proper training, support, and communication channels with Alberta Transportation, leading to flawed audits that further impact safety compliance determinations. This systemic issue raises questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the safety oversight program in Alberta.
Despite federal funding allocated to enhance road safety and data exchange initiatives, the existing gaps in the Carrier Profile system highlight a critical need for improvement. The discrepancy between intended safety measures and operational shortcomings underscores the urgency for corrective actions and increased accountability within the transportation safety framework.
Why is Alberta Transportation allowed to continue a program that is fundamentally flawed? Why are taxpayers paying salaries to a leadership group to run a flawed program? This is just another example of government inertia that is allowed to continue unabated while bureaucrats collect taxpayer salaries to do a terrible job. As taxpayers and stakeholders invested in road safety, it is essential to demand transparency, efficiency, and accuracy in safety monitoring programs. Accountability and rectification of existing flaws are imperative to uphold the standards of safety and compliance in the commercial transportation industry.
In conclusion, the revelations regarding the Alberta Transportation safety monitoring system shed light on the need for reform and transparency in data sharing and auditing processes. By addressing these issues, we can ensure that carriers are held accountable, road safety is prioritized, and the integrity of safety compliance programs is maintained for the well-being of all road users.
Ensuring that motor carriers have appropriate safety ratings is a crucial responsibility of regulatory authorities overseeing transportation. The presence of unsafe and unfit carriers on the road poses significant risk, not only to the drivers and personnel directly involved, but also to the general public. The consequences of accidents involving such carriers can be severe, leading to injuries, loss of lives, property damage, and environmental hazards.
There is a real and probable risk that federally regulated Alberta carriers have been upgraded to a Satisfactory or Excellent safety ratings using unreliable audit scores. The Province has been made aware of this, yet has taken no action to correct it, putting the Province at serious risk of liability.
The Alberta government is permitting private third-party auditors (TPAs) to use encrypted Record of Duty Status (RODS) for conducting NSC Standard 15 Audits. There are concerns about the validity of the audit results because encrypted data was used to conduct the audit. The specific concern is that encrypted RODS may lead to inaccurate and unreliable hours of service scores, which significantly contribute to the overall audit score, potentially rendering the entire audit ineffective.
Any federally regulated carriers in Alberta that have undergone an NSC Standard 15 audit by a TPA since January 1, 2023, should have their audit fees refunded, administrative penalties and conditions repealed, and their safety rating rescinded to preaudit status.
In 2021, Transport Canada updated the Federal Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (SOR/2005-313) to include Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs), (Section 77), and also refers to the Technical Standard, developed by the CCMTA. All certified ELD devices must meet the Technical Standard.
The Technical Standard requires all ELD systems to generate standardized ELD output file (CSV and PDF) and transfer those record of duty status (RODS) to an authorized safety official upon request (System Design 1.4 d). The Technical Standard specifies the minimum data required to be included on the standard ELD output file (CSV and PDF) (System Design 1.4 e). For a TPA to audit RODS that fully meet the Technical Standard, the RODS must be sent via one of the transfer methods specified, and in the manner specified in Technical Standard 4.8.2 ELD Output File. Data must be transmitted via:
Transport Canada compiled a list of email addresses for inspectors authorized to have PKI encryption keys. PKI is an acronym for public key infrastructure, which is the technology behind digital certificates. A digital certificate fulfills a similar purpose to a driver’s license or a passport – it is a piece of identification that proves your identity and provides certain allowances.
When a government safety official receives the RODS from a trucking company, the RODS are unencrypted, via PKI, because government enforcement officials have the encryption key. TPAs do not, because they are not designated as inspectors. This is a critical gap in the auditing process when a trucking company transmits encrypted Record of Duty Status (RODS) to a government-certified TPA. The TPA cannot access all the required data for a comprehensive audit.
TPAs do not have encryption keys primarily to protect driver privacy during periods of personal conveyance. Driver privacy is paramount and there is a Technical Standard specific to that end (Technical Standard 4.7.3 Privacy Preserving Provision for use during personal uses of a CMV).
To compound the issue, TPAs are not required to retain the RODS reviewed in an audit, therefore previous audits cannot be reviewed to ensure correct RODS were used.
Both of these factors raise significant concerns about the transparency and accountability of Third-Party Auditors (TPAs) in the auditing process, particularly regarding the handling and verification of unencrypted Record of Duty Status (RODS) data. If there is no mechanism to confirm whether TPAs are using unencrypted data and no requirement for them to submit evidence for retention, it creates a potential vulnerability in the accuracy and reliability of audits.
Private industry is aware of the problem to some degree. Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) president Mike Millian said in a 2022 press release:
“We are also waiting for a PKI vendor and system to be announced by Transport Canada that allows for ELD data to be transferred securely from the device to enforcement personnel, as well as enforcement protocols, training, and how the regulation will be enforced uniformly between jurisdictions.”
In June 2022, the CTA (Canadian Transportation Association) released information via email regarding the PKI system:
“Encryption of Record of Duty Status Email Files
The process for establishing the encryption of records of duty status (known as PKI) for email transfer to Roadside officials is the responsibility of Transport Canada. The process for implementing the Transport Canada work is the responsibility of each provincial and territorial jurisdiction, which includes submitting email addresses of enforcement officials who will be engaged in hours-of-service enforcement. The requirements and format for ELDs to produce the encrypted record of duty status are contained in the ELD technical standard, which is the result of a collaborative effort between Transport Canada, representatives from all provincial and territorial governments and ELD vendors. Devices certified through the Transport Canada and Standards Council of Canada process will meet the required format for record of duty status.”
As of January 1, 2023, NSC Audits conducted by Third Party Auditors in Alberta can not be considered accurate to a threshold that can be used to assess carrier safety risk.
There is no way to confirm the RODS used by a third party auditor were unencrypted because unlike the government auditors, TPAs are not required to submit the evidence reviewed for retention in the TSIS system. If you compare this to evidence used in criminal matters, if evidence is considered suspect or deficient, it cannot be used to convict. If the RODS used in a Third Party Auditor audit are suspect or deficient, the information cannot be used to assess an administrative penalty, condition or SFC rating.
Recommendations
There are two possible resolutions to the issues at hand.
Recommendation 1
A simple three-part solution exists to mitigate and correct the issues at hand.
Recommendation 2
Designate government-certified TPAs as “inspectors” which would enable them to access the PKI encryption key required to access full and correct ELD RODS datasets. The Federal Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (SOR/2005-313) defines an
inspector as:
(a) a person designated under subsection 3(2); or
(b) a peace officer within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code.
Section 3(2) of the same regulations notes that:
(2) A director may designate inspectors for the purposes of these Regulations.
References
