About a month ago, reports emerged of a data breach involving digital scans of more than 100 million driver’s licences. IDScan.net provides technology that can capture information and images from a driver’s licence, store them digitally, check for signs of fraud, compare the licence photo with a live photo or selfie, and verify details against supported databases.
Many people encounter ID-scanning technology in hospitality. Bars and entertainment venues use it to verify identity and help stop banned patrons at the door.
In Manitoba, some liquor stores take the process a step further. Customers wait in a locked vestibule while their identification is checked. Only a few people are allowed in at a time; the rest wait outside in −45 weather. Explaining this arrangement to someone who is not from Manitoba is always entertaining. Welcome to Manitoba, if you want alcohol bring your ID and dress for the weather.
IDScan.net also markets its technology to warehouses, shippers and transportation companies to verify driver identity and combat cargo theft. That raises an interesting question about the Air Canada gold heist: was the pickup driver’s ID checked?
Commercial drivers have reason to pay attention to this breach. Reported searches identified approximately 1.1 million Canadian licence records, although that figure is not a confirmed count of affected individuals. On September 21, 2026, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada announced an investigation into IDScan.net’s safeguards and its notifications to affected people.
Choosing to Share Information or Being Required To
If a nightclub requires an ID scan and you do not want to share your information, you can choose another venue or stay home.
ELDs are a different situation. For federally regulated commercial drivers required to maintain RODS, using a certified ELD is a legal requirement, subject to the prescribed exemptions. This is technology drivers must use to do their jobs.
The Canadian ELD Technical Standard includes protections for those drivers’ information. But how is the data protected, and who can access it?
From the Engine to the Dashboard
An ELD receives vehicle information from the engine’s electronic control module (ECM) and other sensors. It combines that information with the driver’s entries to create electronic records of duty status (RODS).
In a cloud-connected system, those records are transmitted to the ELD provider’s servers and stored. The carrier accesses each driver’s records through an online dashboard or similar portal to monitor hours of service, review events and retrieve reports.
An ELD is not intuitive it does not know why a truck moved. The ELD’s only job is to record a driver’s time using the information from the truck. Understanding what those records mean still requires someone who understands hours of service and ELD functionality.
Protection at Each Step
Security depends on the provider’s hardware, software and configuration. We should not assume that every connection is encrypted simply because the device is a certified ELD.
| Step | How data is protected |
| ECM → ELD hardware | The standard requires supported serial or CAN communication. That requirement alone does not establish that this connection is encrypted. |
| ELD hardware → phone or tablet, if used | Protection depends on the provider’s design, including pairing, authentication and encryption. |
| ELD → cloud | Encryption in transit can protect information moving to the provider’s servers. |
| Stored in the cloud | Safeguards can include encryption at rest, access restrictions and monitoring. |
| Cloud → carrier dashboard | HTTPS/TLS protects transmission to the browser. User permissions control access within the dashboard. |
| Downloaded report → carrier’s computer | Protection depends on the file and the carrier’s storage, access and sharing practices. Dashboard encryption does not automatically keep a downloaded PDF or CSV encrypted. |
Producing Records for an Inspector
When a driver is stopped roadside or at a highway inspection station, there are two related processes: showing records on the device display or a compliant printout (PDF RODS) and transferring the standardized electronic output file (CSV).
Technical Standard 4.9.1 Transfer of Electronic Files During Roadside Safety Inspections addresses electronic transfer. Email is mandatory; USB and Bluetooth are additional options where supported. Display and printout requirements are addressed separately in 4.8.1.
Under Federal HOS SOR/2005-313, subsection 98(2), the motor carrier must transmit electronic RODS to the inspector in the format and using a transfer method prescribed by the Technical Standard. If a driver is asked to provide RODS in a different way such as screenshots, do not pay that ticket and call me!
An electronic transfer gives the inspector records that can be examined beyond the device screen and retained as evidence. The inspection period includes the current day and the previous 14 days.
Who Has the Key?
Technical Standard 4.10.1.2 Wireless Data Transfer Through E-Mail requires encryption of the prescribed output file using a public key compliant with the Canadian PKI infrastructure.
PKI (public key infrastructure) is a digital lock-and-key system that protects information so only someone with the corresponding key can read it.
During implementation, provinces and territories were responsible for submitting enforcement officials’ email addresses and enrolling officials in the secure transfer process.
The Federal HOS regulations clearly identify who qualifies as an inspector.
SOR/2005-313, section 1:
inspector means
(a) a person designated under subsection 3(2); or
(b) a peace officer within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code.
Directors section 3:
3 (1) The minister responsible for highway safety in a province may designate a person to exercise in the province the duties and functions of a director for the purposes of these Regulations.
(2) A director may designate inspectors for the purposes of these Regulations.
This ensures only the people “allowed” access to the data and the RODS have it.
Personal Use and Driver Privacy
Personal conveyance is the movement of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for personal use while off-duty. A driver may record time operating a CMV for personal conveyance as off-duty only when the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work by the motor carrier.
When a driver selects authorized personal use, the ELD records a start event. It continues monitoring cumulative personal-use distance, but 4.7.3 Privacy Preserving Provision for Use During Personal Uses of a CMV, restricts event recording to personal-use events, malfunctions and data diagnostics. When personal use ends, an end event is recorded.
Under 4.5.1.3(a)(b), those personal-use start and end events include location fields. The privacy protection is the absence of a regular intermediate location trail during the personal-use period, not the disappearance of every record associated with it. That happens because what the driver does during personal use is considered off duty and nobody’s business.
That distinction matters. So does the distinction between the ELD record and a separate fleet GPS system, which continues collecting location information.
Understanding the Data Matters
Protecting driver information and understanding ELD evidence go together.
Data breaches will remain a risk while stolen information has value. Drivers and carriers should use strong, unique passwords, enable multifactor authentication where available, limit account access and handle downloaded records carefully.
Providers and regulators also have responsibilities. Drivers cannot personally secure a provider’s cloud infrastructure or administer an enforcement PKI system.
Driver privacy matters enough to be addressed in the Technical Standard. The records matter enough to have prescribed formats and protected transfer methods. Understanding both should be a basic expectation of anyone assessing ELD compliance.
How to Handle the Hours of Service Exemption Without ELD Penalties
Transport Canada has given an Hours of Service (HOS) exemption for drivers transporting refined petroleum products (diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, gasoline-ethanol blends, and ethanol) between and through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario.
If a carrier and driver have managed to jump through the many many hoops required to use the Refined Petroleum Products Distribution Sector Exemption, specific steps must be taken to manage ELD functionality. I have broken it down so you and your drivers don’t get popped with fines roadside or face failure-to-monitor penalties during an NSC Standard 15 Audit or compliance review.
How the Exemption Changes Driver Hours
The Refined Petroleum Products Distribution Sector Exemption allows a driver to operate 84 hours on-duty in 7 days rather than 70 hours—essentially gaining 14 additional hours in 7 days.
Here is how the driver math breaks down in real life:
The exemption essentially gives carriers one extra full 14-hour work shift per week per driver by eliminating the mid-week downtime enforced by the 70-hour cap.
The ELD Problem: How to Make It Work in the Cab
All great things, but how does it work in the cab of the truck?
A driver using an ELD under the Federal hours of service rules cannot change or select an 84/7 cycle in the ELD software.
Drivers must remain logged into their standard 7/70 cycle and rely on the "Remarks" section of their record of duty status.
Daily Log Remarks
For every day the driver operates under this exemption, they must enter a clear note in the Remarks section of their ELD log stating that the exemption is active.
Example Remark: "Operating under Transport Canada Section 16 Refined Petroleum Exemption."
Managing ELD Violations and Roadside Inspections
Because the ELD software continues to run on standard 70-hour cycle logic, it will trigger automated warnings:
Carrier Monitoring and Dashboard Auditing
It’s not all on the driver, the carrier has extra work as well. Because the ELD will trigger driver violations, those violations will show up directly on the carrier’s ELD management dashboard.
Under the conditions of the exemption, safety personnel must actively manage these records:
If you plan to leverage this exemption do not wait to get your paperwork and processes in order, this exemption expires in just 10 days. Gathering the required Canadian Fuels Association confirmation email, submitting your notice to Transport Canada, pulling updated 12-month driver abstracts, and training your drivers on mandatory ELD log remarks takes time.
Good luck and shoot me a message if you have questions.
Part 2 - Safety Is a Data Architecture Problem
When the Minister identified safety as a systemic issue in Canada’s trucking sector, the instinctive response is to call for stricter enforcement.
But Canada does not lack enforcement tools.
Canada lacks integrated enforcement architecture.
Under the National Safety Code framework, motor carriers receive:
Safety events — inspections, collisions, convictions — are shared through the Carrier Data Exchange (CDE), coordinated by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.
However, the exchange system was built more than twenty years ago.
As CCMTA President Linda McAusland testified before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the system is limited, formatting-dependent, and long overdue for modernization. Information must match exactly in field structure and sequencing in order to transfer. Some jurisdictions still rely on spreadsheet-based systems. Others operate advanced enterprise platforms. Where data doesn’t match, data is manually entered.
Safety data exists. It does not move seamlessly.
Structural Lag and Enforcement Reality
When enforcement depends on:
Carrier domicile and operational changes can occur faster than regulatory systems reconcile them.
If enforcement visibility is tied to provincial domicile and data does not move seamlessly, it should not surprise us that regulatory positioning becomes part of strategic decision-making.
This is not a criticism of individual regulators. It is a structural observation.
A public example illustrates the point.
On April 6, 2018, a collision involving a semi-truck and the Humboldt Broncos bus resulted in the loss of 16 lives. The carrier involved, subsequently had its Safety Fitness Certificate suspended by Alberta Transportation.
In June 2018, media reports identified that a numbered company connected to the suspended carrier had begun operating from the same Calgary address. Alberta Transportation indicated that it became aware of the overlap following media inquiries. Conditions were later attached to the new entity’s certificate.
This sequence is part of the public record. The point is not about individuals. It is about timing.
Humboldt exposed not only personal tragedy, but structural lag within enforcement architecture.
PKI, ELDs and Technology in Silos
Canada’s Electronic Logging Device (ELD) regime includes encrypted Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) transfers for regulatory inspections. PKI was included in the Technical Standard to protect a driver’s privacy.
The system works in the context it was designed for.
But:
Technology layered onto fragmented governance creates blind spots.
The lesson is not that ELDs failed.
The lesson is that systems must be built with interoperability and cross-context enforcement in mind.
The Rewrite of NSC 7, 14 and 15
The review of:
is the first meaningful opportunity in decades to modernize the safety fitness framework.
If modernization focuses only on rewriting standards — without rebuilding data interoperability, identity linkage, and cross-jurisdiction comparability — Canada risks reconstructing a 21st-century policy on 20th-century architecture.
Safety is not merely about rules.
It is about systems engineering.
The Bottom Line
Canada does not need more safety regulation.
It needs:
Safety is a data architecture problem. Until that architecture is modernized collaboratively, enforcement will always be reactive rather than predictive.
The FMCSA has issued a Regional Emergency Declaration granting temporary Hours of Service (HOS) relief due to severe winter storms and extreme cold impacting major U.S. transportation corridors. While the exemption provides regulatory relief, it does not magically make ELD compliance problems disappear.
This is where carriers and drivers get into trouble.
The federal government may exempt a driver from certain HOS limits — but the ELD still records data unless you tell it otherwise. An ELD does not understand emergency declarations, intent, weather, or common sense. It only understands inputs, rules, and thresholds.
If this exemption is not managed correctly, a driver can appear non-compliant roadside or during a compliance review, even while operating lawfully under the emergency declaration.
What the FMCSA Emergency Declaration Actually Does
Under Emergency Declaration No. 2026-001, FMCSA has granted emergency relief from:
This relief applies only to motor carriers and drivers providing direct assistance supporting emergency relief efforts in the affected states. It does not apply to routine commercial deliveries, mixed loads with nominal emergency supplies, or long-term recovery operations. All other FMCSRs remain fully in effect, including CDL, drug and alcohol testing, insurance, hazardous materials, and vehicle size and weight requirements.
The ELD Problem No One Understands
There is no regulatory interpretation guide in the U.S. or Canada that explains how ELD data should be managed. There is only:
ELD providers are not required to train carriers, drivers, or enforcement on how their applications function. They built an app. It is up to the user to figure out how to operate it correctly under real-world conditions.
And here’s the critical reality:
ELDs record data whether the driver is exempt or not.
If a driver:
None of those outcomes are what you want during an emergency exemption.
The Only Regulatory Workaround That Exists
The HOS regulations and the ELD Technical Standard do provide a workaround — the Exempt Driver function.
What the Regulation Says
49 CFR § 395.28(b) — Drivers exempt from ELD use
“A motor carrier may configure an ELD to designate a driver as exempt from ELD use.”
What the Technical Standard Says
49 CFR Part 395, Appendix A, Subpart B, Section 3.1.3 — Exempt Driver
“An ELD must allow a motor carrier to configure an ELD for a driver who may be exempt from the use of the ELD… motor carriers can use this allowed configuration to avoid issues with unidentified driver data diagnostic errors.”
There is a clear acknowledgement here that functionality issues exist, and the exempt driver configuration is the mechanism provided to deal with them.
Further clarified in:
Section 4.3.3.1.2(a)
“An ELD must provide the motor carrier the ability to configure a driver account exempt from use of an ELD.”
How the Exempt Driver Function Actually Works
The technical standard does not require a carrier to use the exemption — only that the ELD provider make it available. The decision to activate it rests entirely with the carrier.
Carrier Setup
Driver Operation
Important limitations:
What the ELD Does While the Driver Is Exempt
49 CFR Part 395, Appendix A, Section 4.3.3.1.2(d)(2) states:
“The ELD must continue to record ELD driving time but suspend detection of missing data elements data diagnostic events and data transfer compliance monitoring functions when such driver is authenticated.”
On the device:
This distinction matters.
Roadside Inspections and Audits: How to Defend It
During a roadside inspection, the driver should state:
“I am operating under FMCSA Emergency Declaration No. 2026-001 and am exempt from HOS limits.”
The driver must then:
Do not assume enforcement has read the bulletin email.
During a compliance review or audit:
Bottom Line
Using the emergency exemption properly is cumbersome, but the exempt driver function is the only way to keep ELD records aligned with both the regulation and the technical standard.
This is not about convenience — it’s about defensibility.
Drivers need to be able to explain it roadside.
Administrators need to be able to explain it during a review.
Enforcement and auditors are not trained in ELD minutiae. If you follow the exact mechanisms provided in the regulation and technical standard, you are using their own language, systems, and rules to protect yourself — and to successfully challenge incorrect findings if necessary.
A recent article published by Overdrive has once again brought ELD tampering into the spotlight. While the U.S. passed its ELD Mandate in 2017, it’s taken nearly eight years to fully acknowledge what many in the industry have known for a long time: widespread, organized manipulation of ELD data is not only happening—it’s become its own nefarious industry.
As the article outlines, ELD data manipulation is now a business in itself. Let’s add this to the growing list of concerning trends in the commercial transportation sector: shape-shifting “chameleon” carriers, drivers under the “Driver Inc.” model to avoid taxes, unpaid workers making less than minimum wage, immigration fraud, shady consultants selling permanent residency, unregulated trucking schools handing out licences to unqualified individuals, multi-layer freight brokers undercutting rates and disappearing into bankruptcy, and rampant equipment and cargo theft. Now, ELD data manipulation joins the club.
The problem isn’t just the manipulation—it’s the lack of understanding from regulators who are tasked with enforcing Hours of Service (HOS) rules. Far too often, enforcement bodies lack the technical training to understand how ELD data works and how it aligns with HOS regulations. This is why the recent push from the U.S. to address tampering only underscores a major gap here in Canada: the ongoing absence of a clear, unified interpretation guide from the CCMTA or Alberta Transportation.
What’s Happening in the U.S.?
The CVSA’s Driver-Traffic Enforcement Committee recently took two important steps to combat fatigue-related incidents tied to tampering:
Frankly, there’s no need for another committee recommendation. I have an Excel template with all the required column headings and corresponding tables from the Technical Standard. It’s all right there—let’s stop pretending this is rocket science.
Why the U.S. ELD System is Failing
The core issue in the U.S. stems from the lack of third-party certification for ELD devices. In the States, ELDs are self-certified by the manufacturers. That opens the door for devices to be programmed with backdoors, allowing driving time manipulation and data tampering.
In contrast, Canada requires third-party certification to ensure ELDs meet the Technical Standards. While tampering does happen here, it's harder and leaves a bigger digital footprint. Most of what we encounter in Canada involves unplugged ELDs or devices not connected to the truck’s ECM.
One key difference? Canada built the definition of tampering directly into the federal HOS regulations, unlike the U.S.
Canada's Regulatory Approach
Federal Hours of Service – SOR/2005-313
Section 86(3):
No motor carrier shall request, require or allow any person to, and no person shall, disable, deactivate, disengage, jam or otherwise block or degrade a signal transmission or reception, or re-engineer, reprogram or otherwise tamper with an ELD so that the device does not accurately record and retain the data that is required to be recorded and retained.
This is reinforced in the Contraventions Regulations (Schedule XVIII – SOR/2023-137):
Even though not every province uses Schedule XVIII, similar charges exist across jurisdictions. During roadside or scale inspections, drivers must produce the current day plus the previous 14 days of logs. If tampering is detected for each day, that’s up to $14,000 in fines for the driver, plus out-of-service status. Carriers can face $28,000 in penalties, plus additional sanctions.
And keep in mind—this is real-time data. If a driver is tampering, the carrier knows it.
The Bigger Picture
Let’s be clear: ELD tampering is not new. It started the day after the U.S. ELD mandate went live in 2017. The FMCSA only began revoking non-compliant devices in 2023—long after the manipulation was deeply rooted.
According to Overdrive, the FMCSA and CVSA are working on an out-of-service inspection standard for tampering, but it won’t be operational until 2026. That’s three more years of vulnerable data enforcement. In the meantime, perhaps the FMCSA should consider involving the U.S. Department of Justice—because selling manipulated ELD data online for a fee? That’s wire fraud.
Under 18 U.S. Code § 1343, wire fraud is defined as:
“...a scheme to defraud or obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmitted by wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Conclusion
Until regulators on both sides of the border catch up with the technology they’re meant to enforce, we’ll keep seeing bad actors exploit the system. The tools to fight tampering exist. The data is available. The problem is enforcement training—and the willingness to learn to use the data properly.
In a December 8, 2024, news release, Diane McLeod, Alberta’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, issued a reminder about the importance of transparency in government operations: “Citizens should be able to feel confident that governments will design systems and processes for day-to-day operations that promote transparency of government records.” Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that transparency is fundamental to democratic trust and civic engagement: “By embedding transparency into the very fabric of our public institutions, we not only build trust between Canadians and their governments but also empower citizens to actively participate in the decision-making processes that shape our society. This resolution is a significant step toward ensuring that our public bodies operate with the openness and accountability that Canadians rightfully expect.”
These principles are more than abstract ideals. They should be central to the actions of public institutions, including Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight. However, the department’s handling of the Federal Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate raises serious questions about its commitment to transparency.
The ELD Mandate Information Hoarding
Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight adopted the Federal ELD mandate on June 12, 2021, with enforcement beginning January 1, 2023. This provided an 18.5-month window between adoption and enforcement—ample time to prepare the industry. Yet, during this period, the department failed to provide critical guidance to commercial carriers, specifically safety officers who are required to monitor and verify driver records.
There has been no interpretation guide for the ELD mandate, no policy for required ELD driver monitoring, no educational materials for industry stakeholders, and no transparency regarding violations observed during reviews yet, Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight can sure write administrative penalties for these infractions. It is immoral and dishonest to hoard information and then subsequently write tickets because the information was not known. This vacuum of information is particularly egregious given the significant operational changes ELDs already impose on federally regulated commercial carriers.
Instead of fostering compliance through education, Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight has focused on enforcement, writing administrative penalties for infractions rooted in ignorance. This approach mirrors the “cash cow” criticisms once levied at the province’s problematic photo radar system, which was ultimately dismantled for being unfair. The question is: How is this any different? When Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight adopts a new regulation, it has an obligation to educate stakeholders, not penalize them for a lack of knowledge.
Transparency: A Pillar of Public Trust
The issue at hand underscores why transparency must be a cornerstone of public administration. Government information belongs to the public, and withholding it undermines the relationship between institutions and citizens. Diane McLeod and Caroline Maynard’s calls for embedding transparency in daily operations are especially relevant here.
To that end, Canada’s Information Commissioners and Ombuds have recommended eight key principles for transparency in public institutions:
These principles are essential for fostering a culture of accountability and openness in all levels of government.
The Path Forward for Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight
To rebuild trust, Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight must shift its focus from enforcement to education. Developing and distributing an ELD interpretation guide, creating clear policies, and providing comprehensive educational resources are urgent priorities. Transparency should no longer be treated as a peripheral concern but as a fundamental aspect of governance.
Furthermore, the department must address systemic issues such as the broken Carrier Profile system and the horrendous TPA program. These tools should serve to enhance safety and compliance, not create additional barriers for measuring accurate commercial carrier safety performance.
Conclusion
Information hoarding by Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight runs counter to the democratic principles of openness and accountability. As Information Commissioners McLeod and Maynard highlight, transparency is the foundation of public trust and meaningful civic participation. It is time for Alberta’s transportation authorities to embrace these values fully, ensuring that their systems and policies reflect a genuine commitment to serving the public interest. Governance rooted in openness and education is not only fairer but also more effective.
In recent months, news stories and discussions on Reddit threads, Facebook groups, and industry publications have illuminated a growing crisis within the Canadian transportation industry. The issue is not just about on-road safety or the rate crisis anymore—it's about the financial instability plaguing commercial carriers across Canada and the United States. Every day, companies are declaring bankruptcy, leaving behind millions of dollars in unpaid wages, truck leases, and taxes. Yet, transportation regulations and safety codes often ignore these issues, focusing solely on a carrier’s road performance.
Take, for instance, a house-moving company in southern Alberta that has recently caught the attention of the Alberta Government's Red Tape Reduction department due to allegations of financial mismanagement and incomplete work. Or the case of Pride Group, a major Ontario-based trucking company that recently went bankrupt, leaving behind enormous debts. These are not isolated incidents—they’re part of a growing trend in the transportation industry, and it's time we addressed the broader implications.
The Gap in Transportation Oversight
During my time in public sector investigations, I’ve seen firsthand the fallout from these financial crises. Over the years, I’ve handled countless complaints from employees who were left without wages. Despite these concerns, transportation regulations in Canada, such as the National Safety Code (NSC), don’t include provisions for monitoring a carrier's financial health.
Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section monitors on-road performance with the non-functional carrier profile system but, there is no obligation to consider over-all carrier health that is not safety related. This leaves a massive gap in regulatory attention. For instance, the house-moving company mentioned earlier currently holds a "Satisfactory" Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC). A citizen conducting due diligence before selecting a carrier may view a Satisfactory rating as including overall performance and compliance to the regulations. However, the reality is that financial instability in transportation companies can lead to deteriorating safety standards. Carriers in financial trouble don’t pay the bills, the drivers, or for expensive truck maintenance. Tires are expensive and if a carrier is at the point of not paying wages or completing work already paid for you know those tires are bald and the ABS light is on.
The Consequences of Ignoring Financial Health
When we overlook the financial well-being of carriers, we're putting more than just paychecks at risk—we're endangering lives. Commercial carriers facing bankruptcy aren’t just skipping wages or taxes; they're skimping on truck repairs, neglecting safety checks, and pushing drivers to operate under less-than-ideal conditions. These are ticking time bombs on our roads, and yet, there is no requirement in Alberta’s Transportation Ministry Business Plan for 2023–2026 to address this issue.
The Alberta Transportation Ministry Business Plan for 2023 – 2026 stated, The ministry ensures a robust legislative and regulatory framework is in place to protect Albertans. Legislation and regulations are reviewed and refreshed to align requirements with emerging transportation related best practices, issues and technologies. The ministry’s focus is on ensuring "a robust legislative and regulatory framework" that protects Albertans, but the framework is incomplete. The National Safety Code and provincial regulations focus solely on road safety and compliance. They ignore critical factors like financial health, which can directly impact safety. Without a complete picture of a company’s stability, it's impossible to truly gauge its ability to operate safely in the long run.
Conclusion: The Need for a New Approach Transportation is a vital part of the economy, and the financial instability of carriers is an issue that can no longer be ignored. To protect both the public and industry workers, regulatory bodies must start evaluating the overall health of carriers. The stakes are too high to focus only on road performance. It’s time for the leadership group of Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, to take an interest in the industry they monitor. Read the news, follow some public Facebook groups, get Redditt. It cannot always be about the Economic Corridors part of Transportation and Economic Corridors, transportation needs some attention also.
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.
At the end of September, The Vancouver Sun highlighted the issue of emissions from heavy and medium-duty trucks in British Columbia, drawing attention to the problem of operators tampering with emission controls using "delete kits." These kits essentially disable emission-reducing technologies in trucks, leading to higher levels of harmful emissions. While Metro Vancouver is poised to present a report on this to a climate committee, this issue has been prevalent for years across Canada. Ontario, for example, has been grappling with delete kits for over six years now.
Metro Vancouver has outlined three potential solutions to decarbonizing the trucking industry:
I hate to state the obvious but, 2019 called, they want their problem back! Delete kits have been an issue for a long time. Maybe it takes a few years for problems to migrate from Ontario to British Columbia. Metro Vancouver could have saved themselves some time and energy and just read all the information Ontario has been publishing for the last 6 years.
These are all important goals, and the industry has been working on these solutions for some time. But, in reality, the immediate challenge lies in the interim period. The reason delete kits are so common is simple: emission systems in older trucks, particularly from the early 2000s, are unreliable. Trucking companies can't afford the downtime caused by malfunctioning emission systems, so many take a "fix it or fuck it" approach, opting for delete kits to keep trucks running.
A significant barrier to addressing delete kits is the lack of consistent enforcement and inspection criteria across Canada. While some jurisdictions have made strides in identifying tampered vehicles, roadside inspectors and repair technicians lack Canada-wide guidelines. For instance, in April 2023, British Columbia raised this issue with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), asking that emission controls be added to Level 1 inspections. This is what was decided: Canada has a regulation in NSC 11B that the exhaust cannot be tampered with. Discussion about how enforcement can determine this roadside, such as with glider kits. Enforcement may not be able to identify which parts, if any, are missing from the system without proper training, however, in some jurisdictions in Canada, roadside inspectors are trained to detect delete kits/tampering, etc. This is like a shock absorber which is a violation in Canada but not in the US. There is no regulatory section in Part 393 that would allow the inspection and a violation to be written regarding the emission system. The consensus is we leave it alone in the United States, unless a state law addresses it. Canada may address it through relevant laws and it would be a critical inspection item under Exhaust (therefore, the vehicle, in Canada, would not obtain a CVSA decal if a violation of the emissions system was present in Canada). In no case, would this be an OOSC condition. There is no uniform agreement across North America.
In Alberta, the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Manual (CVIP) still exempts emissions controls from inspections until future regulations are introduced. This leaves many sections of the 2014 NSC 11B, particularly those related to diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) systems, unenforceable. Ontario, on the other hand, has specific inspection criteria and penalties in place, making it the only province that actively enforces regulations on delete kits.
Ultimately, as provinces like British Columbia and Alberta lag in enforcement, the trucking industry is evolving. By the time regulatory amendments are made, manufacturers may have resolved emission control issues, or trucks may have switched to alternative fuels entirely. Until then, the enforcement of delete kits remains inconsistent, with Ontario leading the charge while other provinces struggle to keep up. If a truck fails a level 1 CVSA inspection anywhere but, Ontario I would ask to see the inspection criteria used to determine the truck was deleted.
The real question is, in the time it takes for studies and regulatory changes to occur, how much further will the industry progress, and how much will the problem of delete kits still matter?
This is a quote from the Transportation and Economic Corridors Annual Report 2022-2023, “Innovation is core to TEC’s mandate. In 2022 ‑ 23, TEC delivered on a range of cutting-edge initiatives.” Cutting edge initiatives and you have professional auditors doing data entry because the computer system doesn’t accept time to the second? Really?
Why is Alberta Transportation paying professional auditors to do hours of manual data entry? I can tell you why!
Professional auditors, who command professional wages due to their extensive experience and education, are currently dedicating hours and hours to manual data entry tasks, highlighting the inefficiency of the current process.
The current system ARC (assessment of regulatory compliance) is designed to accept time entries only in 15 minute increments of an hour (8.25, 8.50, 8.75), which is completely unfeasible and inefficient process in 2024. ELDs (Electronic Logging Devices) record a driver's time in real-time by the second using data from the truck engine (ECM). Auditors are required to look up converted time information from a paper chart and then enter the data into ARC. In 2024 there exists a more advanced and streamlined solution that should be implemented.
During hours of service reviews, a 30-day sample of drivers RODS (Record of Duty Status) is reviewed and recorded. However, the existing computer program, ARC (Assessment of Regulatory Compliance) was not created to handle time by the second. The ARC system requires auditors to refer to a Conversion Chart in the ARC help manual to translate minutes into the appropriate decimal value for data entry. This cumbersome process not only consumes investigative resources but also contradicts the efficiency goals that technology is meant to enable.
Below is taken from the ARC help manual used by Investigator’s and Third Party Auditors (TPA).
All “Hours” fields in the New ARC take time in decimals of an hour only. For proper calculations please ensure the appropriate decimal of an hour is entered in New ARC.
Conversion Chart
Find the minutes you need to enter under the “Minutes” column and beside it in the right side column is the appropriate decimal conversion. Add this decimal conversion to the total full hours and you will have the appropriate time in decimals of an hour to enter in your field.
Consider this - a standard 5-driver audit sample can lead to 450–900 minutes or 7.5–15 hours simply being spent on manual data entry. These 7.5 – 15 hours represents just entering time, if a violation is detected a descriptive narrative of the violation is also required. If every calendar day has a violation, which happens all the time, that is a significant waste of resources. ELD systems generate a CSV files in Excel format that contain all the relevant information needed by Investigators and Third Party Auditors.
It is evident that there is a clear need to modernize and integrate ELD systems into the audit process to streamline operations, improve accuracy, and save valuable time and resources. By transitioning to a more technology-driven approach, the Transportation and Economic Corridors sector can enhance efficiency, reduce errors, and ultimately improve overall regulatory compliance.
Transportation and Economic Corridors could have been a leader in technology based solutions but, shortsightedness in leadership will keep Alberta auditors using a abacus. It is crucial that leadership drive progress and innovation within critical sectors like transportation auditing.
