Part 3 - Driver Inc, Dual Safety Certificates and Competitive Distortion
The Minister identified Driver Inc. and inter-jurisdictional trade as systemic concerns in Canada’s trucking sector.
They are often treated as separate policy problems.
They are not separate. They are structural.
Driver Inc Survives in Regulatory Seams
Driver Inc is typically framed as a tax enforcement issue.
But its persistence reflects fragmentation:
No single authority sees the full operational picture of a carrier and its drivers across all regulatory domains at once.
Fragmentation allows misclassification to persist between regulatory seams.
But fragmentation does something else. It shapes competitive cost structures.
Two Safety Fitness Regimes, Two Competitive Environments
Canada operates under a constitutional dual framework:
Enforcement intensity, exemption structures, administrative requirements, and compliance costs can differ.
That difference matters.
The Money Reality
Federally regulated carriers must comply with federal Hours of Service rules, including Electronic Logging Device (ELD) requirements.
In some provinces, intra-provincial carriers are not subject to identical ELD mandates or cumulative cycle limitations.
ELDs are not symbolic.
They involve:
Across a fleet of 50, 100, or more power units, that becomes a material operating cost.
In addition, federal cycle rules limit how many hours a driver may accumulate over 7 or 14 days. Where provincial frameworks provide different cycle structures or greater flexibility, scheduling and dispatch capacity can differ.
The difference is not philosophical. It is financial.
It affects:
Where regulatory burdens differ, competitive advantage can follow.
Inter-Jurisdictional Trade and Regulatory Arbitrage
Trade barriers in trucking are often discussed as paperwork or technical inconsistencies. Try to permit and ship a wide load from PEI to Victoria BC and you will understand inter-jurisdictional trade barriers.
But structural asymmetry goes deeper.
When provinces apply different:
carriers will make strategic decisions about domicile, operating structure and fleet allocation.
Regulatory arbitrage is predictable behaviour within a fragmented framework.
If one structure reduces compliance cost, increases scheduling flexibility, or lowers administrative overhead, market forces respond accordingly.
The Link Between Driver Inc and Cost Pressure
Driver Inc does not operate in a vacuum.
It exists in an environment where:
When cost pressures rise under one regulatory structure, some operators will seek structural positioning that reduces exposure.
That can include:
Driver Inc is partly a labour issue. It is also an economic signal.
The Structural Question
If:
then Driver Inc and trade distortion are not anomalies. They are structural outputs.
Addressing them requires more than targeted enforcement or public announcements.
It requires coordinated data sharing modernization across:
No carrier should gain competitive advantage simply because the regulatory map is uneven.
If we are serious about safety, fair competition and labour integrity, then we must acknowledge that structural differences influence behaviour.
Until compliance obligations are viewed through both a safety lens and an economic lens, the same problems will continue to reappear under different names.
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.
Part 1 – Leadership, Direction, and the Governance Gap
The Transport Canada briefing binder for Changing Landscape of Truck Drivers in Canada was released this month. I spent my weekend reading it so you don’t have to.
Standing Committees meet to examine issues and make recommendations. Their recommendations are not laws or regulations; they shape direction and priorities that may eventually move through Cabinet and the long painful regulatory process.
The question that keeps resurfacing is simple:
Why does nothing ever change?
If government wanted to make change, it would. Change requires political will. Without it, files stall.
ELDs are a perfect example. They have been mandatory since 2021 and there is still no national ELD interpretation guide. Meanwhile, technology has already moved ahead. AI-enabled driver monitoring, biometric logins, predictive telematics — these tools are evolving faster than policy.
The core issue is not technology. It is leadership and direction.
Since 2019, Canada has had six Transport Ministers. Most did not remain in the role long enough to set or sustain long-term priorities. The Transport portfolio is not typically viewed as a high-profile or politically strategic ministry. It manages every mode — road, rail, air, marine — and much of the work involves responding to crises rather than setting proactive direction.
Ministers rely heavily on the Deputy Minister and public service for continuity. On the road transportation file specifically, regulatory authority flows through the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), where all provinces and territories shape the Strategic Plan (currently 2024–2027). The collaborative structure makes sense. The logistics is where it falls apart.
Imagine a football team with one head coach, one assistant coach, and thirteen special teams coaches — all calling plays. This is the reality of the CCMTA, 13 provincial and territory representatives plus ten provincial trucking associations and roughly twenty national industry organizations. All of them have different and competing priorities and the CCMTA is expected to bring them all together in agreement under the direction given by Transport Canada. The result is not collaboration; it is diffusion.
Change happens when political will aligns with public pressure.
After Humboldt, there was will. MELT followed.
Now there is pressure around Driver Inc., licence mills, and unsafe carriers. Driver Inc. has its own section in this committee report. Driver Inc is not new — but it is politically relevant again.
Around 2017, carrier operating costs rose sharply while freight rates did not keep pace. One lever available to reduce cost was labour classification. Driver Inc. expanded. Today, with government fiscal pressure mounting, enforcement of Driver Inc solves two problems: tax recovery and targeted safety intervention.
Committee Composition and Industry Knowledge
The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities includes ten Members of Parliament. Each biography lists “issues raised relating to the Transport Canada portfolio.”
There were 35 issues identified.
They include ports, rail investments, emissions, public transit, marine pollution, aviation delays, climate resilience, and rural connectivity.
None of the listed issues relate directly to road transportation safety.
There is no reference to:
The study is titled Changing Landscape of Truck Drivers in Canada. Yet among the ten committee members, none have direct professional experience in commercial road transportation.
That is not criticism. It is structural observation.
Direction Going Forward
In his opening remarks, Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon identified three priorities:
This summer, Transport Canada hosted a “trucking hackathon.” The outcomes were:
The goals are clear. The question is execution.
Cooperation cannot remain rhetorical. Every ministry, association, and industry body must move from “what should be done” to “what are we doing.”
Fragmented regulation, information silos, and reactive governance will not produce durable change.
If meaningful reform is coming, it will require sustained leadership, someone has to make hard decisions.
CVSA Inspection Bulletin 2026-02 False Records of Duty Status and Electronic Logging Device Tampering
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) has released Inspection Bulletin 2026-02 addressing enforcement distinctions between false Records of Duty Status (RODS) and Electronic Logging Device (ELD) tampering.
In North America’s regulatory structure:
This bulletin is important because it provides structured enforcement interpretation in an area that has historically lacked consistency — distinguishing between ordinary falsification and data integrity compromise.
False Record of Duty Status
§ 395.8(e)(1) (U.S.) and 86(2) – Canada
A false RODS occurs when the recorded duty status does not reflect actual activity, but the timeline can still be reconstructed.
Personal conveyance misuse is one example — but not the only one.
Common falsification scenarios include:
If the inspector can determine when the driving occurred and correct the record:
The key factor is whether compliance can be reconstructed.
Reengineered, Reprogrammed, or Tampered RODS
§ 395.8(e)(2) (U.S.) and 86(3) – Canada
Tampering is fundamentally different.
Here, the issue is not an incorrect duty status selection — it is compromised data integrity.
Examples include:
The bulletin provides an example where fuel receipts proved activity in one state while the RODS reflected off-duty status in another, with approximately 21 hours of driving unaccounted for.
When required ELD data has been altered or cannot be relied upon, enforcement escalates.
If the inspector cannot determine actual driving and rest periods:
At that point, the question is no longer whether a driver exceeded hours — it becomes whether compliance can be verified at all.
Context Within the Broader ELD Discussion
This bulletin does not arise in isolation.
In a previous article, “Late to the Party: The U.S. Wakes Up to Widespread ELD Tampering,” I examined how ELD manipulation practices had already been identified across the industry before formal enforcement clarification was issued.
https://raventransportationsafetyconsulting.com/late-to-the-party-the-u-s-wakes-up-to-widespread-eld-tampering/
That analysis identified recurring indicators such as improper unidentified driving reassignment, credential sharing, manual driving entries where automatic capture should occur, and discrepancies between supporting documents and recorded duty status.
The CVSA bulletin now formalizes the enforcement distinction between:
That distinction is significant for both carriers and enforcement.
Interpretation and Guidance Gaps
The CCMTA and Transport Canada have previously issued technical guidance relating to Data Diagnostic Events in Table 4 of the Canadian ELD Technical Standard. However, that guidance has not consistently filtered through to industry stakeholders in Alberta.
As a result, carriers have faced ELD violations for several years without a comprehensive interpretation framework clarifying how enforcement should evaluate data structure, transmission methods, and Technical Standard compliance.
Inspection Bulletin 2026-02 provides a foundation that Canadian jurisdictions can use in developing consistent interpretation guidance.
Final Observations
Full U.S. ELD enforcement began in 2019.
Full Canadian enforcement followed in 2023.
Structured regulatory interpretation of falsification versus tampering is only now being clarified.
This bulletin signals a shift toward evaluating not only hours compliance, but the integrity of the underlying ELD dataset itself.
For carriers, that distinction matters.
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.
The Alberta government has introduced a new funding model for municipalities with respect to policing services. Rural and municipal policing have inherent pain points that will never be resolved: there are only so many officers for remote regions, only so much money to go around, and that reality isn’t changing.
In my September 2024 blog, STOP Treating Tickets as a Cost of Doing Business, I talked about Alberta’s shifting enforcement landscape. Between the RCMP, sheriffs, bylaw officers, peace officers, the new Border Interdiction Team, and independent city police services, Alberta is crawling with new enforcement. Edmonton and Calgary both have dedicated commercial vehicle divisions with fully trained CVSA officers. The Interdiction Patrol Team has helicopters, drones, dogs, and guns.
All of this is very expensive. Calgary and Edmonton are tens of millions of dollars short in their policing budgets because of lost photo radar revenue — thanks for that, Maple MAGA Dreeshen.
How Police in Alberta Are Currently Funded
Short answer: It’s complicated.
1. Municipal Police Services (e.g., Calgary Police, Edmonton Police)
Funded primarily by municipal taxes, not the province or feds.
Main sources:
👉 Bottom line: Calgary Police and Edmonton Police are paid for by their cities, not by higher levels of government.
2. Provincial Police (RCMP contract policing in rural Alberta)
Funding split:
RCMP covers rural areas, small towns, and provincial highways.
3. Federal RCMP Units
Entirely funded by the federal government.
They handle national security, organized crime, border integrity, and financial crimes.
Municipalities do not pay for this.
The New Alberta Funding Model (April 2026)
Beginning April 1 2026, municipalities will pay a larger share of their own policing — without raising property taxes.
And how exactly do you think they’ll pull that off?
Commercial vehicles.
Because commercial vehicle enforcement is the most reliable revenue generator in the game.
Violations are endless:
And remember, if a driver is overweight on multiple axles, an officer can ticket each axle separately, plus the overall weight. LinkedIn is full of officers proudly posting ticket stats adding up to thousands of dollars.
Throw in a few ELD violations and your town might finally be able to afford the armoured vehicle or tactical team the chief has been dreaming about.
Most carriers don’t fight tickets because:
The government knows this.
It’s one reason some officers like to “pile on” violations — issuing multiple tickets for essentially the same offence under different regulations.
And when that well starts to dry up, there’s always the “chicken tickets”: tint, exhaust, and the Wetaskiwin special — obscured or faded licence plate under TSA AR320/2002 s.71(1).
Alberta had an entire bad batch of plates for a decade. Instead of issuing a warning and a notice to replace the plate, the province quietly posted a notice on its website… and let enforcement go wild writing tickets for it.
What Wetaskiwin Has to Say
Josh Bishop, Reeve of Wetaskiwin County, said:
“We appreciate the government’s commitment to freeze the police funding model rate and consult with municipalities. The proposed five-year transition provides the budget predictability municipalities require. This approach acknowledges the increased costs of policing and allows us time to adjust without forcing immediate, severe tax hikes on our residents.”
Of course he appreciates it — Wetaskiwin has more shitty plates than anywhere else in Alberta from the number of tickets they write. They can ride that revenue wave all the way into the sunset.
And Don’t Forget the Coming Alberta Police Force
The pressure on commercial carriers will only intensify when Alberta moves to its own provincial police service. Hopefully it gets a cool name like Alberta Rapid Force or The A Team.
And yes — Alberta is actively recruiting globally.
The Law Enforcement Pathway under the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program is designed to attract police officers from abroad. In 2025, 20 nomination spots were available; 11 were already filled, with more than a hundred candidates waiting.
For the Record…
I’m not anti-enforcement. I’m anti-abuse-of-power.
Commercial vehicle enforcement is necessary in Alberta and across Canada. The industry cannot and does not police itself — and when left alone, it descends into chaos, as we’ve recently seen.
Municipalities need policing revenue. Fine.
But does it really have to come from window tint and plate tickets?
How about focusing on:
But that takes actual work.
And writing 20 chicken tickets in a day is so much easier — and better for bragging rights on Snapchat.
Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors has released its new Class 1 Driver Experience Record, a program demanded by insurers after years of skyrocketing claims involving untrained drivers. The irony? The same government that ignored the problem of unqualified drivers for years now expects a magic form to fix it.
This isn’t safety reform. It’s paperwork theatre.
A Form Written by People Who Don’t Understand the Industry
Carriers are now required to document every tiny detail of a driver’s history, including:
Equipment Types
Commodities
Every TDG class separately.
Sand, gravel, water, dairy.
“Over-dimensional” AND “overweight” as separate categories—despite being essentially the same thing. Any professional would simply call it permitted or extraordinary loads.
Driving Environments
Mountains, cliff roads, ice roads, resource roads.
Range of Operations
Urban, interurban, interprovincial, international (USA, Mexico, other).
This isn’t meaningful safety data. It’s bureaucratic box-ticking designed to look impressive on paper.
Shifting Liability to Carriers—Not Improving Safety
The person who signs the form is now personally attesting to a driver’s training, experience, competence, and claims history.
If that driver has a major collision? The attestor may be the one explaining their signature.
Meanwhile, the actual safety problem remains untouched.
Legitimate Carriers Already Do This Work
Carriers who operate legally and pay for insurance already have:
This form doesn’t improve anything—they already manage driver development responsibly.
The Real Problem? The Province Still Won’t Touch It.
The carriers destroying Alberta’s insurance market are:
These carriers will ignore the form or fabricate it—just like they ignore every other requirement.
Alberta’s own track record proves this.
One carrier hit so many bridges in BC that the province shut them out. Alberta welcomed them with open arms and operating authority.
Now TEC wants you to record how many structures your drivers have hit. Why? The government clearly doesn’t care.
Sure, Alberta Transportation has posted some recent “wins” — shutting down 13 carriers sounds impressive, but in reality, that’s just 0.067% of Alberta carriers, the investigations took half a year, and Minister Dreeshen has held this portfolio since 2022. You don’t get applause for finally doing your job.
This isn’t safety. It’s a distraction designed to appease the insurance industry while the actual causes of rising premiums continue unchecked.
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.
| Country/Region | Qualification Type | Duration |
| Germany | Full Vocational Training | 1.5 to 3 years |
| European Union (EU) | Driver CPC Qualification | 280 hours |
| Canada (Alberta) | New Class 1 Learning Pathway | 103.5 hours |
The Fight for a National Standard
For years, organizations like the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) have been vocal advocates for a national standard to address these very issues. They and other industry groups have been pushing to have professional truck driving recognized as a Red Seal trade. However, despite these long-standing efforts, the results have been frustratingly slow. The industry is still grappling with inconsistencies in training hours and a lack of mandatory instructor certification across jurisdictions. Driver schools in Ontario have been given a extension to October 2025 for the requirement to have a written curriculum ffs! Would anyone pay tuition to go to a university or college class that didn’t have a written curriculum? This is the state of the world we are in. The industry is pleading for the government to "prioritize and expedite" a review of the training sector to put an end to the "unscrupulous" and "substandard" training schools that are undermining legitimate businesses and putting untrained drivers on the road. The problem is not the language drivers speak; it's the broken system that allows them to get on the road without the proper training and oversight.
It’s time to stop the lip service and demand a federal commitment to a more professional trucking industry for everyone.
By now, everyone has seen the horrific images from the fatal crash in Texas, caused by a semi-truck driver who fell asleep behind the wheel. While media outlets have zeroed in on the driver’s nationality and immigration status, the real issue—the one that should concern all of us—is this: the company that employed him should never have been operating in the first place.
The investigation that followed uncovered that the carrier was a non-citizen trucking operations exploiting non-domiciled drivers, using virtual addresses in the U.S. to register with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) while actually operating out of other countries like in Eastern Europe or Russia. These carriers exist on paper only—shell companies dispatching trucks remotely, often with no real oversight, regulation, or liability.
This same thing is happening in Canada. And it's been ignored for years.
In my blog post “Hey Transport Canada, Take a Page Out of the FMCSA’s Book on Chameleon Carriers,” I discussed the FMCSA’s new national registration program called Motus. Motus is designed to identify so-called “chameleon carriers” by creating a national data base that will flag companies that share the same addresses, phone numbers, or ownership information.
The numbers out of the U.S. are staggering:
Why should Canada care? Because we are no different—and in some ways, worse.
Canada’s carrier profile system hasn’t allowed enforcement data to be shared seamlessly across provinces or with international partners for years. We’ve ignored the problem and the inaccurate carrier profile data, hoping it will resolve itself. It won’t. This is our opportunity to join with the United States and Mexico and create compatible registry systems that can track and flag suspicious operations in real time. We should be integrating with Motus, not pretending this is someone else’s issue to solve.
The loopholes are being exploited daily.
Carriers operating illegally know our enforcement system is broken. They know they’re unlikely to be caught, and if they are, the consequences are minimal—especially when the carrier dosen’t exist in any meaningful way. In the Texas case, the carrier was foreign-owned, registered with fraudulent info, and employed a Cuban national. Think about it: what are the odds that this company had valid commercial insurance?
Here’s what will likely happen:
If the public knew how many trucks were operating without valid insurance—or with forged documents—they would be stunned. Commercial trucking insurance is extremely expensive, and freight rates are shockingly low. Carriers that play by the rules are being pushed out because they cannot compete with companies that skip insurance, taxes, source deductions, fair wages, and maintenance.
What’s enabling this insurance fraud? A lack of centralized data.
Unlike vehicle registrations or driver’s licenses, there is no real-time insurance database available to enforcement officers. When a driver is pulled over, they show a pink insurance card—sometimes altered or completely fake. The insurance status is taken at face value because there is no place for an officer to check. Most people only discover the coverage is fake after a crash.
So what’s the fix? Centralize and share the data. Now.
If governments collaborated, created a shared national and cross-border registry system, and made real-time insurance verification available to enforcement, fraudulent carriers would be stopped in their tracks. It would also level the playing field for honest carriers—those who pay taxes, follow the rules, and put safety first.
There’s more data available than ever before. The problem isn’t lack of information—it’s that it’s scattered, siloed, and hoarded by different agencies an jurisdictions. The criminals have figured out how to exploit the cracks in the system. It’s time we closed them.
We don’t need another tragedy to act.
On May 12, 2025, Alberta’s Minister of Transportation, Devin Dreeshen, signed Ministerial Order 20/25, which introduced amendments to the Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation (AR 314/2002). These changes are already in effect and impact driver recordkeeping requirements, NSC Standard 15 audit scoring, and NCCR evaluations.
Despite reaching out to Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight and the Alberta Motor Transport Association (AMTA), I have received no clarification or further information on the updated requirements or the prescribed new form. Stakeholders are left without guidance on compliance changes that are now enforceable.
Summary of Key Changes to Section 41(1): Driver Records
Previous Regulation:
Carriers were required to maintain the following:
Revised Regulation (Post-Ministerial Order 20/25):
My Interpretation of the Changes:
The revised wording appears to consolidate several previous requirements:
Impact on NSC Standard 15 & NCCR Audit Scoring
Previously, carriers could earn up to 4 points across four individual audit questions. Now, due to the consolidation:
Key Concern:
This scoring method could disadvantage carriers and negatively impact audit results unless there is an accompanying change to the scoring methodology—which has not been communicated by Alberta Transportation.
New Requirement: Record of Commercial Driving Experience (driver exit abstract)
Ministerial Order 20/25 introduces two new sections: 31.3 and 31.4.
Section 31.3(1–2):
Section 31.4(1–2):
My Understanding:
This relates to drivers transitioning from Learning Pathway (Alberta-only restricted license) to a full Class 1 license. However, the specific certificate format or template has not been made available.
What Should Carriers Do Now?
Here’s my advice until further direction is provided:
✅ Update your safety program driver recordkeeping policies:
✅ Review your driver files:
⚠️ Regarding the commercial driving experience certificate:
Final Thoughts & Call to Action
It has now been over a month since the Order was signed, and Alberta Transportation has failed to provide adequate updates or resources to affected carriers. This level of information hoarding puts carriers at risk of non-compliance through no fault of their own.
What You Can Do:
I will continue reaching out to Alberta Transportation and the AMTA. As soon as I receive any updates, I will post a follow-up blog.
