One of the most talked-about topics in the transportation industry today is the controversy surrounding commercial drivers' language proficiency. While recent efforts in the U.S. to enforce English-language requirements are making headlines, this focus is a distraction from the root cause of the industry's problems. The truth is, the real issue isn't a lack of language skills; it's a lack of standardized training and insufficient regulatory oversight that has been ignored for decades.

This is a problem that hits close to home in Canada, particularly when we compare our system to the proactive approach taken by the European Union.

A Tale of Two Systems: The EU vs. Alberta

The European Union has a clear, standardized system for commercial driver qualifications. Drivers must obtain a Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (Driver CPC), which involves rigorous training and exams. Crucially, these exams are administered in the official language of the country where the training is conducted. This process ensures that drivers are not only technically competent but also have a working knowledge of the local language necessary for safety and communication. This framework prevents what is known as "license shopping," where drivers obtain qualifications from countries with less stringent standards, sound familiar?

Now let's look at the contrast in Canada, using Alberta as a key example. While Canada has made strides and many provinces have implemented Mandatory Entry-Level Training (MELT), the system remains fragmented. In Alberta we have the Class 1 Learning Pathways but, the true gap appears in how carriers are created, regulated and monitored.

The "Chameleon Carrier" Problem

In the EU, opening a trucking company requires a specific license from the Ministry of Transport, along with registration with tax and social security agencies. The owner or manager is required to hold a Transport Manager Certificate of Professional Competence (TM CPC), which ensures they have formal training in transportation operations, financial management, and legal requirements. This ensures that new carriers are held to a high standard from the outset.

In Alberta, the process is starkly different. You can register a company, get a business number, and obtain an NSC number after one person completes a 6 – 8 hour online course and a in person knowledge test. A third-party review is required within a year, but it can be conducted remotely. This lenient system creates an environment ripe for what are known as "chameleon carriers" carriers who have been documented as unsafe in other provinces. Additionally trucking companies are often domiciled on paper in one province for insurance or lenient NSC enforcement but primarily operate in another, often skirting regulations.

This lack of strict, in-person audits and comprehensive pre-entry requirements contributes to this dumpster fire of a chaotic market, unqualified drivers and shady operators entering the industry with minimal barriers and allowed to operate unchecked.

A Closer Look at the Hours

The difference in standards becomes even more apparent when you look at the training hours. The EU’s Driver CPC program requires a minimum of 280 hours of training, while in Germany, a full vocational apprenticeship can last 1.5 to 3 years, providing a comprehensive education in all aspects of the trade, not just driving.

Contrast this with the Canadian standard. While Canada has tried to move towards a standardized system, the hours are a fraction of what is required in Europe.

The Fight for a National Standard

For years, organizations like the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) have been vocal advocates for a national standard to address these very issues. They and other industry groups have been pushing to have professional truck driving recognized as a Red Seal trade. However, despite these long-standing efforts, the results have been frustratingly slow. The industry is still grappling with inconsistencies in training hours and a lack of mandatory instructor certification across jurisdictions. Driver schools in Ontario have been given a extension to October 2025 for the requirement to have a written curriculum ffs! Would anyone pay tuition to go to a university or college class that didn’t have a written curriculum? This is the state of the world we are in. The industry is pleading for the government to "prioritize and expedite" a review of the training sector to put an end to the "unscrupulous" and "substandard" training schools that are undermining legitimate businesses and putting untrained drivers on the road. The problem is not the language drivers speak; it's the broken system that allows them to get on the road without the proper training and oversight.

It’s time to stop the lip service and demand a federal commitment to a more professional trucking industry for everyone.

By now, everyone has seen the horrific images from the fatal crash in Texas, caused by a semi-truck driver who fell asleep behind the wheel. While media outlets have zeroed in on the driver’s nationality and immigration status, the real issue—the one that should concern all of us—is this: the company that employed him should never have been operating in the first place.

The investigation that followed uncovered that the carrier was a non-citizen trucking operations exploiting non-domiciled drivers, using virtual addresses in the U.S. to register with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) while actually operating out of other countries like in Eastern Europe or Russia. These carriers exist on paper only—shell companies dispatching trucks remotely, often with no real oversight, regulation, or liability.

This same thing is happening in Canada. And it's been ignored for years.

In my blog post “Hey Transport Canada, Take a Page Out of the FMCSA’s Book on Chameleon Carriers,” I discussed the FMCSA’s new national registration program called Motus. Motus is designed to identify so-called “chameleon carriers” by creating a national data base that will flag companies that share the same addresses, phone numbers, or ownership information.

The numbers out of the U.S. are staggering:

• One building in Signal Hill, California, was listed as the registered address for 700 trucking companies—500 of which shared the same phone number and email address.
• A non-operational site in Dallas, Texas, was linked to 20 separate carriers.
• A Miami virtual office was tied to 400+ trucking companies, 250 of which shared a single email domain (FMCSA audit, Jan. 2025).

Why should Canada care? Because we are no different—and in some ways, worse.

Canada’s carrier profile system hasn’t allowed enforcement data to be shared seamlessly across provinces or with international partners for years. We’ve ignored the problem and the inaccurate carrier profile data, hoping it will resolve itself. It won’t. This is our opportunity to join with the United States and Mexico and create compatible registry systems that can track and flag suspicious operations in real time. We should be integrating with Motus, not pretending this is someone else’s issue to solve.

The loopholes are being exploited daily.

Carriers operating illegally know our enforcement system is broken. They know they’re unlikely to be caught, and if they are, the consequences are minimal—especially when the carrier dosen’t exist in any meaningful way. In the Texas case, the carrier was foreign-owned, registered with fraudulent info, and employed a Cuban national. Think about it: what are the odds that this company had valid commercial insurance?

Here’s what will likely happen:

• The driver goes to jail.
• The carrier vanishes.
• The survivors have no one to sue.

If the public knew how many trucks were operating without valid insurance—or with forged documents—they would be stunned. Commercial trucking insurance is extremely expensive, and freight rates are shockingly low. Carriers that play by the rules are being pushed out because they cannot compete with companies that skip insurance, taxes, source deductions, fair wages, and maintenance.

What’s enabling this insurance fraud? A lack of centralized data.

Unlike vehicle registrations or driver’s licenses, there is no real-time insurance database available to enforcement officers. When a driver is pulled over, they show a pink insurance card—sometimes altered or completely fake. The insurance status is taken at face value because there is no place for an officer to check. Most people only discover the coverage is fake after a crash.

So what’s the fix? Centralize and share the data. Now.

If governments collaborated, created a shared national and cross-border registry system, and made real-time insurance verification available to enforcement, fraudulent carriers would be stopped in their tracks. It would also level the playing field for honest carriers—those who pay taxes, follow the rules, and put safety first.

There’s more data available than ever before. The problem isn’t lack of information—it’s that it’s scattered, siloed, and hoarded by different agencies an jurisdictions. The criminals have figured out how to exploit the cracks in the system. It’s time we closed them.

We don’t need another tragedy to act.

In the arena of politics and government decision-making, lobbying is a controversial practice that often sparks debates and raises concerns about its influence on public policy. While lobbying can serve as a powerful tool for advocacy and positive change, it also has a dark side marked by unethical behaviors and potential manipulation of government regulations.

Lobbying, defined as the act of attempting to influence decisions made by government officials, is a common practice in both the United States and Canada. However, the way lobbying is conducted, and its impact vary between the two countries. In the United States, the connections between lobby groups and donations to government officials have raised suspicions and led to scrutiny, especially during presidential elections. On the other hand, Canada has a smaller lobbying industry with less influence of money, but it is not immune to lobbying scandals.

One such scandal that rocked the Canadian political landscape was the SNC-Lavalin affair, where a prominent engineering company engaged in unlawful lobbying activities to secure a government agreement. The scandal shed light on the ethical and legal implications of lobbying practices, highlighting concerns about transparency in government decision-making and the potential for undue influence on public policy.

While cases like the SNC-Lavalin scandal tarnish the reputation of lobbying, not all lobbying efforts are harmful. Advocacy organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in Canada have successfully lobbied for stricter laws and policies to combat impaired driving, leading to tangible improvements in road safety and a reduction in alcohol-related accidents.

However, the issue arises when lobbying serves the interests of specific industries at the expense of public safety and accountability. This example of the Alberta Motor Transport Association (AMTA) lobbying on behalf of the Canadian Association of Energy Contractors (CAOEC) to secure exemptions raises questions about the integrity of lobbying practices.

The AMTA successfully lobbied Alberta Transportation and got exemptions to the Oilfield Exemption Permit as it relates to the Hours of Service regulations. Specifically, under this permit, a driver does not have to use the prescribed log book required in the Hours of Service regulation. Drivers under this permit are already exempt from using a ELD and should be using a paper log to meet the Hours of Service requirements. However, because of lobbying instead of a paper log these drivers are allowed to record working time on a “tour sheet”. The criteria for a “tour sheet” only requires the total on-duty and off duty hours for the day. No work shift start and end time is required. There is absolutely no way for an auditor to confirm total off duty requirements are met if there is no start and end time. The CAOEC essentially got an exemption to the very heart of the regulation which is to ensure drivers are getting adequate off duty time. By influencing Alberta Transportation to grant exemptions that compromise driver safety and accountability, the AMTA and CAOEC showcase how lobbying can be used to circumvent regulations for the benefit of industry interests.

Farmers and Ranchers in Alberta have been asking for a ELD permit or a ELD exemption for years and it has been ignored. The disparity in treatment between different sectors, as seen in the case of farmers and ranchers in Alberta seeking ELD permits or exemptions, further underscores the need for fair and transparent lobbying practices.

When government decisions prioritize economic interests over public safety, it creates a concerning precedent that undermines the trust in regulatory processes. Unethical lobbying practices erode trust in government institutions and jeopardize public welfare. It is crucial for policymakers, advocacy groups, and citizens to remain vigilant and hold lobbying activities with government accountable to ensure transparency, fairness, and ethical conduct in shaping government decisions.

When you mix transportation in with economic corridors there is always the risk that safety will not be a priority over the economy. I want to address some critical safety gaps that have been ignored by TEC (Transportation and Economic Corridors) for years. Albertan’s should be deeply troubled by the neglect of crucial safety policies within Compliance and Oversight.

The Compliance and Oversight department monitors the overall safety of trucking companies in Alberta. Compliance and Oversight conducts audits and investigations to ensure compliance with the NSC standards. However, there are glaring issues that demand immediate attention:

1. **Non-Compliance with Intervention and Discipline Policies:** There is a disturbing trend of Compliance and Oversight failing to adhere to its own policies. Companies with significant safety violations are not being labeled as unsatisfactory, allowing them to operate under conditional status without proper intervention. This negligence has been repeatedly highlighted in audits by the Auditor General, yet no corrective actions have been taken.

2. **Flawed Third-Party Auditor (TPA) Program:** The TPA program, responsible for conducting NSC Standard 15 Audits on behalf of the Alberta government, is fundamentally flawed:

   - Auditors do not have encryption keys to be able to download complete RODS. This compromised data is used for hours of service reviews, impacting carrier safety and public road safety.

   - Lack of support for auditors, hindering their ability to communicate with TEC for assistance.

   - Inadequate training and monitoring of auditors, leading to unreliable audit information.

   - Inefficiencies in data processing and communication, undermining the accuracy and effectiveness of audits.

If any carrier failed a audit or got a penalty as a result of a audit by a TPA in the last 2 years, I would 100% appeal it. The TPA audits are not accurate because TPA auditors do not have the “key” to unlock the box, that contains the accurate RODS. Would you pay your income tax if you found out the T4’s information has been wrong for years? Pretty simple argument.

To address these urgent safety concerns, the following actions are proposed:

1. Immediate review of all TPA audits and compliance records since June 2022, to ensure accuracy and reliability.

2. Establish a streamlined process for handling TPA audit by providing encryption keys, enhancing transparency and accountability.

3. Enforce intervention and discipline policies rigorously, ensuring that unsafe carriers are marked unsatisfactory and penalized accordingly, promoting road safety and public confidence.

Continuing to ignore these issues and allowing unsafe carriers continued operation is validating the perception that Alberta highways are more dangerous today. Unfortunately, these issues will be ignored until there is another incident involving a Alberta trucking company that Compliance and Oversight deemed safe.