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?
As an Alberta-based carrier, understanding the intricacies of Safety Fitness Certificates (SFC) is essential for compliance and avoiding costly penalties. A common question that arises is whether an Alberta-based carrier with a Provincial SFC can operate outside of Alberta by simply purchasing permits in other provinces like British Columbia or Saskatchewan. The short answer is no, and here's why.
Intra-Provincial vs. Extra-Provincial: Know the Difference
First, let’s clarify the two types of SFCs:
It’s crucial to understand that an Intra-Provincial SFC does not give you the flexibility to temporarily operate outside Alberta by buying a permit in another province. The permits available in British Columbia and Saskatchewan that many carriers refer to are for vehicle registration (IRP) and fuel tax (IFTA) purposes, not for operational authority. This common confusion often leads carriers into regulatory trouble. Yes, I know your cousin’s uncle that owns a trucking company has been doing it for years but, that just means they haven’t been caught yet.
Why Permits Don’t Equal Permission
Many carriers mistakenly believe that purchasing a permit for registration or fuel tax allows them to operate extra-provincially. However, these permits are solely for the legal use of highways (registration) and the payment of fuel taxes. They do not grant you the authority to pick up or deliver loads outside Alberta.
The responsibility of understanding the need for a Federal SFC falls on the carrier. Unfortunately, Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division do not provide education on this requirement. Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section focus is on compliance, and they expect carriers to be informed about the regulations governing their operations.
The Siloed System and Its Impact
One of the reasons carriers often find themselves in violation is the lack of communication between various government departments. Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, the departments responsible for permits and those overseeing SFCs operate in silos. This means that when you obtain a permit from one department, there is no cross-communication to inform you of other regulatory requirements, like the need for a Federal SFC.
This disconnect often results in carriers unintentionally violating regulations. Operating extra-provincially with an intra-provincial SFC the carrier is not just risking tickets or penalties but, extra-provincial carriers carry insurance that intra-provincial carriers do not. Should the carrier have an accident while outside the jurisdiction the insurance company may deny that claim and open the carrier up to liability.
The High Stakes of Non-Compliance
Safety Fitness Certificate follows the virginity rule, you only get one shot. An Alberta carrier with a Provincial SFC that is stopped operating in another jurisdiction would be made Federal and the carrier would have to apply to return to intra-provincial. The regulation AR 314/2002 Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation Section 6 4.2(1)(c) uses the wording operates or intends to operate. Getting caught operating extra-provincially proves the intention to operate. Operating with an Intra-Provincial SFC outside Alberta is not just a minor infraction—it’s a serious violation.
Carriers operating extra-provincially require ELDs, speed limiters, and are required to pay Provincial Sales Tax (PST) in jurisdictions like British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Non-compliance with these requirements may put the carrier on the radar of Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section and the carrier will be caught on the never ending NSC Audit wheel of fortune.
Final Thoughts: Stay Educated and Compliant
Remember, Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section role is enforcement, not education. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; carriers must take the initiative to educate themselves on the regulatory environment they operate in. Investing time in understanding these regulations can prevent significant headaches down the road. Stay informed, stay compliant, and keep your operations running smoothly.
BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
The federal vs provincial SFC is an Alberta system, not BC. A BC NSC Certificate is not different for carriers whether they operate only in province or over borders.
If you have a Provincial SFC, you will need to apply and obtain a Federal one in order to cross into BC. We do not issue permits changing a carrier's standing or operational category.
SASKATCHEWAN SGI PERMIT OFFICE
Saskatchewan does not have any permits that covers the provincial safety fitness, customers need to have their fitness safety changed to federal before entering SK
The Government of Alberta announced changes to the MELT Class 1 Mandatory Entry Level Training program, turning the program into an apprenticeship model. These changes are urgently needed today but, it will take time to launch the program and is expected March 1, 2025. Currently MELT drivers pay upwards of $10,000.00 to obtain a Class 1 drivers licence and then most can’t find a job because insurance companies require two years of over the road experience. This apprentice model should fulfill the insurance company requirements and hopefully open federal funding for new students.
All of this is great stuff but, the reality is Alberta will produce quality, well trained drivers and put them to work in an industry that is a disaster. It is like raising Kobe beef only to sell it to Burger King. If commercial driving is going to be a trade, then it is time to hold the road transportation industry to that trade standard.
Transport Canada and the provinces and territories need to take a hard look at the road transportation sector and make some changes. There is zero accountability for trucking companies that utilize questionable practices like Driver Inc to circumvent taxes, immigration and human rights regulations. Driver Inc is a model based on commercial drivers, who do not own/lease or operate their own vehicle. These drivers are becoming incorporated and not paying source deduction like income taxes or Employment Insurance. The prevalence of chameleon carriers operating across Canada highlights the need for greater oversight and enforcement measures. A chameleon carrier is a trucking company that, if cited or closed down for a marginal safety record, quickly changes its name and address and restarts operations.
Chameleon carriers operate unchallenged across Canada, in Alberta the penalty for lying on a Safety Fitness application to fraudulently obtain a Safety Fitness Certificate is $1000.00 and the company is allowed to keep operating. To compare, also in Alberta, the penalty for not stopping for an invasive species boat inspection is $4200.00. Why does Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors (TEC) not take road safety as serious as Alberta Environment takes protecting our lakes?
Alberta does not have accurate enforcement information from all jurisdictions, see my blog, Don’t look behind the curtain! unveiling the Alberta Transportation safety scam. Unless the provincial jurisdictions specifically contact each other about unsafe carriers potentially moving into other jurisdictions, a tragedy is usually the first notification. There is not a central transportation regulatory body in Canada that collects safety data as there is in the United States, the broken carrier profile system all we have in Alberta.
These sketchy chameleon carriers also can be self-insured. Because of this they can cause mayhem, then go bankrupt and start over with zero consequence. Trucking company insurance minimum requirement in Alberta is $10 million dollars. How much do you think a bridge or infrastructure strike costs to repair? British Columbia recently substantially increased the fines and jail time for drivers that hit structures. What about the trucking company that employs the driver? It may be the driver’s fault but, it is the carrier’s responsibility.
The lack of support systems for both rookie and experienced drivers exposes them to exploitation and mistreatment within the industry. Drivers have zero complaint options, even after being abused, unpaid, disrespected, forcibly dispatched and worse. Complaint procedures in Alberta are convoluted and inadequate, leaving drivers without effective recourse when faced with issues such as unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions. Alberta TEC, Compliance and Oversight department complaint procedures are an offense to the rights of workers that need urgent protection. The complainant is sent a witness statement via email. The issue is that the document it is a non-fillable PDF, so the driver needs to print it, physically fill it in, sign it, scan it, and email it back. How does that help or support the driver? Consider a driver that finally gets the courage to complain to the government and gets told to fill out a form. Drivers in a Driver Inc. situation working for chameleon carriers that go bankrupt and leave unpaid wages are not eligible for employment benefits because they are not employees. As a Driver Inc driver the only option is to get a lawyer and sue. Kobe beef cattle has more protections than drivers in Canada.
The qualified driver shortage is a real safety problem, and more training and experience is better for drivers and everyone on the road. Changes must be made in conjunction with large-scale fundamental improvements to the carriers and industry that employ these drivers. Commercial driving is dangerous and lonely with poor pay, no wage guarantees, terrible working environments with limited rest areas and parking. Unless you fix systemic issues, these red seal drivers will leave the industry or die on the highway trying. Make commercial driving a trade that people aspire to undertake the training and time to become a red seal, anything less is another waste of drivers’ time of money.
On May 31, 2024, the British Columbia Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit against a commercial carrier and a driver for damages, losses and expenses to repair a bridge damaged in an incident. This is a bold move for the Attorney General’s office and depending on the outcome it may open the door to other jurisdictions following suit.
In August 2022, a commercial vehicle was involved in an incident while transporting dangerous goods and the result was catastrophic. The driver was killed, a vital bridge was significantly damaged, and the community was cut off from essential services. The bridge is still being worked on and the current estimate is $4.25 million. In British Columbia the insurance liability limits for a commercial carrier are 10 million per occurrence and an extra $2 million for the dangerous goods. Maybe the British Columbia government should increase the minimum insurance liability limits to an amount that reflects the cost replacement value of a bridge today? In British Columbia it is a public insurance model, and this is just a matter of changing the insurance regulations.
In this case, the insurance company is never going to have to pay a dime to the carrier because the Attorney General has already pinned the blame on the company and the driver. The insurance company (who is the BC Government) has many many things to “limit liability”, when paying insurance claims. Good luck getting $4.5 million out of a trucking company and a driver’s estate. I personally do not know many drivers taking home that kind of money. The trucking company will go bankrupt with lawyer fees and what point is being made?
In its lawsuit, the federal government doesn't pinpoint exactly what caused the truck to crash into the bridge. Instead, it alleges that negligence from both the company and the driver "caused or contributed to" the crash and the resulting fire. The statement of claim says Troyer Ventures allegedly failed to check that the truck was "mechanically sound," inspect its brakes and ensure that the driver was properly trained for transporting dangerous goods. It also includes a long list of alleged errors made by the driver, ranging from neglecting to ensure the truck was sound and operating "while his ability to drive was impaired by fatigue or other factors."
The lawsuit does not provide evidence indicating how the incident occurred but, they allege the driver and company had a role to play. You know who else has a role to play? The provincial jurisdictions that are supposed to be monitoring commercial carriers to ensure the company has a maintenance program and is conducting vehicle inspections. Under the National Safety Code (NSC Standard 7) the provincial jurisdictions are required to use enforcement information from all of Canada and the United States to determine if the carrier meets the national safety standards. The carrier in the lawsuit, according to the public carrier profile system, currently holds an Alberta Safety Fitness Certificate with a Satisfactory safety rating. A Satisfactory rating means the carrier had a review by the Government of Alberta or a Third Party Auditor (TPA), who are certified by the Government of Alberta. That review found the Carrier has achieved acceptable results on NSC audit; the Carrier has not been identified on Alberta Transportation's monitoring list in the past 12 months and the Carrier has no outstanding compliance issues. Blowing up a bridge and a fatality from 2022 is not an outstanding compliance issue in 2024?
Two crucial aspects to bear in mind:
Dave Earle, the CEO and president of the B.C. Trucking Association said there is not enough staff and not enough enforcement being done. Now we have a situation for those inspections that are getting done, the data is not being received by the jurisdictions that are responsible for monitoring the carrier. The data the jurisdiction is using to determine safety isn’t correct or timely, is it any wonder that transportation safety is such a shit show? Nobody is watching.
If the British Columbia Attorney General is going to hold a carrier and a driver responsible, then I believe the Attorney General has a few bridge strike carriers to review. The same bridge strike carrier that is operating in Alberta because, it’s Transportation and Economic Corridors Department and Alberta is open for business. You can’t sue one carrier and not sue all the carriers that cause significant damage and death. Lawsuits go both ways, if the Attorney General is going after carriers and drivers then I know more than a few families who should consider suing their respective provincial jurisdictions for knowingly allowing operations despite glaring compliance issues and the jurisdiction’s own operational failings of compliance and oversight. We all have a role to play in transportation safety.
In the world of commercial transportation, safety is paramount. To ensure the safety of drivers and other road users, regulations and monitoring programs are essential. One such program is the National Safety Code (NSC), which sets standards for commercial vehicles, drivers, and motor carriers in Canada. This code, though not law, is crucial in guiding provincial and territorial governments in drafting their safety regulations. In Alberta, the regulations are outlined in the Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation, AR 314/2002 (Part 4.1).
NSC Standard 7 is the criteria for carrier and driver profiles. The Carrier Profile system is designed to provide an overview of a carrier's safety performance, encompassing records of infractions, collisions, on-road inspections, and facility audits. This system allows Alberta to monitor carriers' performance and take action against those posing safety risks across North America.
The Carrier Profile acts as a report card for carriers, offering transparency to stakeholders like shippers, insurance companies, and the public. By accessing this information, stakeholders can make informed decisions about engaging with specific carriers, promoting safety and accountability within the industry.
However, there is a critical issue with the reliability of the Carrier Profile data. Despite its intended purpose, there is a significant flaw in data sharing between jurisdictions. Alberta is not accurately capturing enforcement data from other provinces. This oversight means that Alberta trucking companies involved in incidents outside the province may not have their records updated promptly or accurately on their Carrier Profiles.
The implications of this data discrepancy are concerning. Carriers with incomplete or delayed information may not face the necessary interventions or audits, leading to inaccuracies in their risk factor scores. This discrepancy could potentially result in carriers maintaining a clean record, qualifying for insurance discounts, and evading enhanced monitoring or audits due to inaccurate risk assessment.
Moreover, the shortcomings extend to the auditing process itself. TPA (Third Party Auditors) do not have encryption keys and cannot audit unencrypted RODS. TPA (Third Party Auditors) lack proper training, support, and communication channels with Alberta Transportation, leading to flawed audits that further impact safety compliance determinations. This systemic issue raises questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the safety oversight program in Alberta.
Despite federal funding allocated to enhance road safety and data exchange initiatives, the existing gaps in the Carrier Profile system highlight a critical need for improvement. The discrepancy between intended safety measures and operational shortcomings underscores the urgency for corrective actions and increased accountability within the transportation safety framework.
Why is Alberta Transportation allowed to continue a program that is fundamentally flawed? Why are taxpayers paying salaries to a leadership group to run a flawed program? This is just another example of government inertia that is allowed to continue unabated while bureaucrats collect taxpayer salaries to do a terrible job. As taxpayers and stakeholders invested in road safety, it is essential to demand transparency, efficiency, and accuracy in safety monitoring programs. Accountability and rectification of existing flaws are imperative to uphold the standards of safety and compliance in the commercial transportation industry.
In conclusion, the revelations regarding the Alberta Transportation safety monitoring system shed light on the need for reform and transparency in data sharing and auditing processes. By addressing these issues, we can ensure that carriers are held accountable, road safety is prioritized, and the integrity of safety compliance programs is maintained for the well-being of all road users.
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.
