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.

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 Humboldt incident, which tragically highlighted the need for better driver training in the operation of commercial vehicles, prompted Alberta Transportation and other jurisdictions to introduce MELT (Mandatory Entry Level Training) to bridge this knowledge gap. MELT, as the name suggests, is entry-level training aimed at equipping individuals new to the field with essential skills, knowledge, and competencies necessary for safe and competent driving. This crucial training encompasses formal instruction, on-road training, mentoring, and assessments, laying the foundation for growth and development behind the wheel.

Most individuals undergo driver education in high school and then gradually build experience by driving. Most new drivers did not get a class 5 go home and hook up a trailer and drive in the mountains the next day. It is the same thing for MELT, it is entry level, why is it okay for a MELT driver to graduate and the next day load up a set of super B’s and go trucking? It isn’t and that is the carrier training component of AR314/2002 Section 41(1)(h)(i). to provide ongoing training related to vehicle operation and compliance with safety laws even after a driver has completed MELT.

Recognizing that experience plays a vital role in ensuring safe driving practices, Alberta Transportation is set to roll out an apprenticeship program starting in 2026. This program aims to transition drivers from entry-level to experienced while being closely monitored, akin to how pilots accumulate hundreds of flight hours before flying passengers. This underscores the importance of hands-on experience and continuous learning to mitigate risks and enhance safety standards in the commercial driving sector.

What do we do until 2026? Train the drivers!

What are the regulatory requirements for carrier driver training?

A Carrier Safety program in regards to driver training; According to section 40(1) of the Alberta Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation (AR314/2002), a carrier must create policies that discuss these subjects in their safety program:

• Policies related to driver training, responsibilities, conduct and discipline;
• Instructions for the use of safety equipment including things such as fire extinguishers, goggles, safety glasses and hard hats and
• Training for employees about safety laws and their application and an ongoing program for evaluating their driving skills;

Carriers are required by law to make sure all employees are trained in and knowledgeable of all applicable safety laws: Traffic Safety Act - including, but not limited to those related to: Hours of Service, Cargo Securement, Rules of the Road, Use of Safety Equipment, Weights and Dimensions, Vehicle Maintenance and DVIR and Record Keeping.

Carrier Orientation and Training:

Carriers must also choose the ways they will inform all new employees about the company’s policies and procedures. They may also provide training to ensure the effective and safe operations of their commercial vehicles. Carriers may develop and deliver suitable training material within their own company or they may use public training courses. They may also hire a consultant to provide customized training, or they may use a combination of these options to train their employees.

Can I train drivers in house? This is the guidance from Alberta Transportation to auditors;

Answer yes if, There is a record of all related training on file (e.g. tests, certificates, course attendance lists, certificate of completion or list of all training completed), including training identified in the carrier’s Safety Program. It is expected that a driver receives training (such as: hours of service, trip inspection, load securement, weights and dimensions, DG as applicable, etc.) in all areas with respect to the operation of a commercial vehicle, if applicable. It is acceptable if this information is contained in a separate “training” file, computer or other system viewable by the User provided the carrier could easily produce training information for an individual driver verifying that applicable training was taken. Also answer “Yes” if evidence is found that drivers have been adequately instructed by their previous employer, then evaluated and accepted by their current employer. A written record of the evaluation must be present. User may accept any training that the carrier can demonstrate is adequate for their drivers given the type of job, vehicle, etc. that the employees operate. Alberta Transportation’s Education Manual was not created or intended to be used as formal training.

Can I use the Alberta Transportation Education Manual?

No, Education Manual disclaimer:

The material in this document is not intended to represent a full training course in any subject area covered. However, it may form part of a carrier’s larger training program. The reader is invited to reproduce all or part of this document, however, at no time should the information contained here be altered in any way nor used in a manner that would change the intended meaning of the material or its accuracy.

What records do I need to document driver training?

This is the guidance from Alberta Transportation to auditors: Does the carrier instruct drivers for: Hours of Service; Trip inspection; load securement; applicable safety law requirements; have an ongoing eval of driving skills?

Regulation: AR314/2002 Section 40 (1)(c) & (e).

Carrier has a written policy and any applicable training materials (may include evidence of instruction or examination from an external source/provider) clearly specifying the training required for drivers and an ongoing program for evaluating driving skills. Examples of training material that would be acceptable include tests, course materials and instructional videos. User may accept any written training policy that the carrier says they feel is adequate for their drivers given the type of job/ vehicle the employee operates. User should comment if they feel the training material is poor or requires updating. An example of what would be expected in order to be answered yes might include: The carrier’s program states “All drivers will be trained in Federal hours of service, trip inspections, load securement (commodity specific), weights/dimensions and must successfully pass a road test with the Safety Officer prior to being authorized to drive an NSC vehicle. Each driver will be required to re-certify in the vehicle every 24 months and pass a driver qualification review every 12 months.” For the purposes of answering this question only, actual proof of training is not required to answer “yes”; it must be in their program and, if it is, there should be training material available to support this. User may ask the carrier to see this material if it is not readily available. This question is asking what is the carrier doing with their drivers AFTER they have hired them and authorized them to drive in the first place (i.e. we don’t want a carrier hiring a driver and then never check up on them for as long as they work there). There is no measurement of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, only does the carrier have a program in place to actually check on their drivers periodically to ensure they are still good drivers. This can be nearly anything, but it must still be reasonable.

Driver training is a endeavor that demands ongoing commitment and diligence from carriers to uphold standards and promote the professional development of drivers. By adhering to regulatory guidelines, implementing comprehensive training programs, and embracing the value of experience, carriers can avoid penalties as a result of an audit or investigation. Untrained drivers expose a carrier to increased liability in a serious on road incident.