Ending Photo Radar: A Cash Cow or a Safety Tool?
Yesterday Minister Devin Dreeshen announced the end to photo radar enforcement on Alberta highways. Nobody likes photo radar but, it’s the reality of keeping drivers accountable. Minister Dreeshen stated the program was a cash cow and there was no proof it actually improved road safety. Postmedia reported, “When someone says photo radar is the be all and end all, when it comes to accidents, the municipalities that actually removed photo radar, the data doesn’t support that,” Dreeshen told reporters at the legislature. His office declined to provide data to support his statement. Mark Neufeld, the head of the Calgary Police Service called him out for that comment because it’s insulting, and it diminishes the value of enforcement in reducing road incidents. Did the photo radar program get abused to increase revenue? Probably, but does that mean you scrap the whole program? Maybe move the cameras from the cash cow areas? One problem does not invalidate the entire program.
Opposition to Speed Limiters
Minister Dreeshen has a history of disdain for speed enforcement, and this was evident in his rejection of speed limiters for commercial vehicles in Alberta. When British Columbia introduced speed limiters for commercial vehicles in April 2024, limiting commercial vehicles to 105 km/hour, Minister Dreeshen stated “Alberta has no intention to further limit the speed of commercial trucks.” This stance, favoring transportation business interests over road safety, is concerning given the preventable collisions caused by speeding trucks. Vehicle manufacturers cannot out-engineer poor driver decisions and that leaves law enforcement the only option to control speeding. Modern safety features like seat belts and airbags are standard and save lives, so why not speed limiters? Commercial vehicles already collect speed data through GPS and electronic logging devices, yet enforcement rarely holds company owners accountable. Why not write some penalties to the owners for allowing the excessive speed? We already know there are untrained drivers with fake driver licenses all over Canada’s roads, at least control how fast they can go.
Lack of Oversight for Commercial Vehicles
The only mechanism to monitor the on road performance of commercial vehicles registered in Alberta is the Carrier Profile system. The Carrier Profile system has been unable to share enforcement data with all the jurisdictions since 2019 and zero effort has been made to mitigate that situation. This means Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight is overseeing inaccurate data. The Third Party Auditor (TPA) program is also fundamentally flawed with inaccurate data because TPA auditors do not have encryption keys to review unencrypted records of a driver’s working time. Insurance companies use this flawed carrier profile information to determine risk when issuing commercial vehicle insurance policies. If Alberta really wants to tackle insurance rates, then insurance companies are going to need to start doing their own carrier compliance assessments and not relying on the information from government.
Safety vs. Business
Minister Devin Dreeshen decisions reflect a pattern of favoring economic concerns over road safety. While his actions may appeal to truckers and businesses, they leave Alberta’s roads less secure. Stricter enforcement, targeted photo radar, and mandatory speed limiters could save lives, but achieving this requires a shift in priorities and maybe an apology to Mark Neufeld and everyone in enforcement.
The issue of chameleon carriers is a persistent and significant problem in Canada’s transportation industry. These carriers circumvent safety regulations and penalties by closing and reopening under new names, posing risks to road safety, drivers, and the public. Despite ongoing discussions among industry stakeholders and government bodies, there remains a lack of decisive action to tackle this problem, exacerbating challenges for road safety and fair competition.
What is a Chameleon Carrier?
According to the CVSA Inspection Bulletin 2021-03, a chameleon carrier refers to a company that shuts down and reopens under a different name or registration number (USDOT/NSC/CVOR/NIR) to avoid penalties, fines, or enforcement actions. This illegal practice undermines regulatory efforts and allows dangerous carriers to continue operations. Chameleon carriers often hide ownership by registering the business under the names of family members or using complex shareholder structures. Although this makes it difficult to trace, it is not impossible if regulators have the political will to act. Chohan for example stated in the news that the new company in Alberta was owned by the same family as the BC company that was booted out of BC for hitting too many bridges and a house. This highlights the problem of weak government oversight, allowing repeat offenders to re-enter the market under a different guise.
Regulatory Gaps in Canada
Unlike the United States, where the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) uses a unified registration system to identify and shut down chameleon carriers, Canada lacks a national system. Each province and territory handles the safety and monitoring of commercial carriers within its jurisdiction through the Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) system. Although the National Safety Code (NSC) standard 7 requires provinces, territories, and North American neighbors to share enforcement data, significant gaps remain in enforcement and coordination.
In Alberta, the carrier profile system is flawed and the Third-Party Auditor (TPA) program, which is meant to ensure compliance, is ineffective, see my blog Don’t Look Behind the Curtain, Unveiling the Alberta Transportation Safety Scam. This lack of comprehensive monitoring and enforcement allows chameleon carriers to operate undetected, as no one is thoroughly overseeing their activities. As a result, public safety is compromised, and responsible carriers face higher insurance premiums.
Limited Reforms Post-Humboldt
Following the tragic Humboldt Broncos bus crash, changes were made to driver training and new carrier entry rules. However, these reforms did not address the chameleon carrier crisis. In Alberta, for instance, when a company applies for an SFC, there is a checkbox asking if they previously held an SFC in another province and were deemed unsatisfactory. Yet, the penalty for providing false information is only $1,000—an insufficient deterrent.
The regulations permit the Registrar to cancel an SFC for false information, but enforcement is lacking, and there is no political will to take necessary action.
Strengthening Enforcement and Collaboration
To address the chameleon carrier issue, Alberta needs to enhance its enforcement mechanisms. The International Registration Plan (IRP) requirement for an “Established Place of Business” could be a vital tool for identifying chameleon carriers. The IRP mandates that carriers maintain a physical structure within Alberta, staffed during business hours. This could serve as an additional layer of verification to ensure that rogue operators cannot easily hide or relocate.
Collaboration between regulatory bodies like Alberta TEC and Alberta Prorate is essential to cracking down on chameleon carriers. By working together, these organizations could create programs, potentially secure funding, and demonstrate the political commitment needed to clean up the industry.
Conclusion: Urgency for Reform
The ongoing problem of chameleon carriers demands comprehensive regulatory reform and robust enforcement. The current lack of coordination and weak oversight allows these carriers to endanger public safety, harm the livelihoods of drivers, and skew competition within the transportation industry. It's time to restore trust and integrity to the Canadian transport network. Canada does not need a federal transportation program to replace the existing jurisdictional model. The jurisdictions just need to do their jobs, fix the Carrier Profile system and start communicating and collaborating.
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
