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.
Chameleon carriers have quietly and systematically undermined the integrity of the trucking industry in Canada and the U.S. for decades. Untrained drivers, fake or nonexistent insurance, undercutting rates, and tax evasion through schemes like Driver Inc. are symptoms of a much deeper issue: the lack of enforcement and coordination between regulatory bodies.
Let’s be honest—the regulators have had decades to shut this down. And now, the only reason we’re even talking about it is because of the growing number of high-profile crashes flooding social media. The public is watching, and they’re demanding change.
If you're not familiar with chameleon carriers, check out my earlier blog karma, karma, karma, karma, karma Chameleon…. Canada’s Chameleon Carrier Crisis, where I explain the scam in more detail. In short, these are companies that dissolve and reincarnate under new names and registrations to dodge enforcement, liability, and oversight. And they’re allowed to do this because our provinces and territories don’t share data effectively. Alberta has been a hotbed for this issue since 2019, but it's not alone—this is a national failure.
Even after fatal crashes, these operators often have another Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) waiting in the wings. Why? Because there’s no integrated system to flag them across jurisdictions. They hop from province to province—or state to state in the U.S.—and no one is any the wiser. It's a loophole, and they exploit it daily.
The FMCSA isn’t blameless—they ignored this problem for years, too. But now they’ve decided to do something about it. In 2025, they’re launching a new registration and vetting system. Here’s what it includes:
The FMCSA Plan:
So, What Is Canada Doing?
Nothing, we’ve got committees. Meetings. Thoughts and prayers after every crash. But no plan. No system. No timeline.
Transport Canada needs to build a program exactly like the FMCSA’s—now, not five years from now when we’re forced to reverse-engineer it at triple the cost. Just like the U.S., Canada struggles with regulatory inconsistency between provinces and territories. We may never harmonize weights and dimensions, but we can harmonize how we track, vet, and shut down fraudulent carriers.
Why It Matters:
Cross-border trade isn’t going away. In fact, closer integration between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico means we need to share data. That’s how we stop chameleon carriers from gaming the system.
Let’s stop pretending that deportations or blaming untrained drivers will fix trucking. It’s not the drivers—it’s the owners, the ones profiting off exploitation and safety shortcuts. Turning on a system like the FMCSA’s is like flipping a light switch and watching the cockroaches scatter.
Transport Canada, please do something. Get in the game.
Well, here we go again. Another publicly-funded vacation, this time sending Glenn van Dijken, MLA for Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock, off to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The official reason? According to the government’s media release, it’s to “champion Alberta’s role as a reliable partner in establishing U.S. food security, share best practices in agriculture and agri-food development.” He’ll also be “advocating for Alberta’s unimpeded access to U.S. markets in discussions with key decision makers on state-level and federal agriculture policy issues.”
Sounds like a great mission. But let’s take a closer look.
The media release also tells us that in 2024, Alberta exported CAD $9.2 billion in agri-food products to the U.S.—a 4% increase over 2023. That’s great. Trade matters. But so does fairness, and this is where things start to feel disingenuous.
If Glenn van Dijken is so invested in aligning with U.S. agricultural policy and sharing “best practices,” maybe he should start by bringing some of those best practices home. Here’s an idea: instead of spending three days networking in Iowa, how about staying in Alberta and having a long-overdue conversation with your colleague, Devin Dreeshen, about the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) exemption for farmers and livestock haulers?
The U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) already includes a livestock transportation exemption under regulation. It’s built right into the rule—no permit required, no red tape. Why? Because U.S. regulators understand that livestock haulers operate under different realities. Animals aren't cargo you can just park at a rest stop and walk away from.
Meanwhile, Canadian regulations require ELDs to be certified and programmed with both Canadian and U.S. hours-of-service rules. And despite the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—which was designed to facilitate cross-border trade—we still have a regulatory gap that gives U.S. drivers more flexibility than their Canadian counterparts when operating in the same country.
Where’s the logic? Where’s the fairness? Where’s the reciprocity that trade agreements are supposed to ensure?
If Alberta’s politicians want to make themselves useful on the international stage, they should start by getting their own house in order. Championing Alberta’s role in agri-food security is great. But championing Alberta’s farmers, ranchers, and livestock haulers at home should be the first priority—not just something to gesture toward in talking points.
So here’s a challenge for Mr. van Dijken: skip the next media release. Sit down with Dreeshen. Fix the ELD exemption for Canadian farmers and ranchers. Then maybe you can host a conference and talk about best practices.
This high-level overview outlines the core issues surrounding Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs), how ELD data is generated, transmitted, and displayed, and why the current Third-Party Auditor (TPA) system in Alberta is fundamentally flawed.
The U.S. implemented its ELD mandate first, with self-certification by ELD providers. In contrast, Canada requires third-party certification. There are hundreds of providers in the US and Canada has less than 50 because the majority of the US devices won’t meet the Canadian standards because they allow driving time to be manipulated. The US is currently revoking the licences of ELD providers that don’t meet the Technical Standard.
Canadian ELD enforcement began fully on January 1, 2022, after a soft rollout in 2021. The workshift rules of HOS didn’t change—only the requirement to log time electronically did.
While Transport Canada and CCMTA created the regulations and standards, they provided no implementation training—to either industry or government. The ELD providers did what was asked, they built the device as per the specs. The Feds and CCMTA did what they were supposed to, they wrote the regulations, and they gave the standards to follow. This failure is 100% on the provincial jurisdictions, by adopting the Federal regulation Alberta Transportation has a obligation to explain what those regulations mean to its constituents and failed to do so.
ELDs collect data from the ECM—engine sensors, tires, GPS, and time. The data is stored on the device and in the cloud. These devices are always powered and continuously monitor and log driver activity.
All certified ELDs function similarly; the only difference is the appearance of the PDF RODS. The only legally recognized output files that meet the full data requirements are:
TPAs don’t use these. They lack:
Instead, they audit printable dashboard PDFs, which can be missing data or altered. As a result, TPA audits are fundamentally flawed.
Imagine doing your taxes with a T4 that leaves out key earnings. You get a refund, then face a CRA audit and a large fine. You find out:
This is what’s happening with TPAs and ELD audits. 95% of audits in Alberta are conducted by TPAs—and they’re based on incomplete, inaccurate data.
From the Federal HOS Regulations:
Section 98(2): Drivers must transmit RODS using the method supported by the ELD and identified by the inspector.
Section 99(2): Carriers must transmit the RODS in the format and method prescribed in the Technical Standard.
From the ELD Technical Standard:
Without following this encrypted, standard process, any audit or review lacks legitimacy.
June 22, 2022, the CTA (Canadian Transportation Association) released information via email regarding the PKI system:
Encryption of Record of Duty Status Email Files
The process for establishing the encryption of records of duty status (known as PKI) for email transfer to Roadside officials is the responsibility of Transport Canada. The process for implementing the Transport Canada work is the responsibility of each provincial and territorial jurisdiction, which includes submitting email addresses of enforcement officials who will be engaged in hours-of-service enforcement. The requirements and format for ELDs to produce the encrypted record of duty status are contained in the ELD technical standard, which is the result of a collaborative effort between Transport Canada, representatives from all provincial and territorial governments and ELD vendors. Devices certified through the Transport Canada and Standards Council of Canada process will meet the required format for record of duty status.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trucking-association-raises-concerns-over-canadas-eld-mandate
“We still want to see ELD enforcement going forward in January, but there’s issues that people are not talking about that are serious issues that still need to be addressed, and the biggest one is the PKI system,” Mike Millian, president of PMTC, told FreightWaves.
This is not just a trucking problem—it’s a systemic data failure that threatens public safety, insurance reliability, and government credibility. The ELD system was designed to bring accountability and transparency. But without proper training, implementation, and audit processes, we’re back to the same risks paper logs created—just with digital lipstick.
Until audits are conducted using fully encrypted CSV or PDF files via PKI, no TPA result should be considered valid.
🚨 When trucks stop, the country stops. So why are we forcing experienced drivers off the road over a language rule that’s more about politics than safety? Let’s talk about what’s really behind this policy.
On April 28, an executive order signed by President Donald Trump was put into effect. The order alters the penalty for violating a longstanding rule that requires commercial motor vehicle drivers to “read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in English, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.”
Under the Obama administration, the penalty for noncompliance was relaxed — violators received citations instead of being taken off the road. Now, the Trump administration is reinstating a harsher stance. As one official stated: “We are issuing guidance that ensures a driver who cannot understand English will not drive a vehicle in this country. Period. Full stop.”
Let’s call this what it is — blatant racism. This isn’t subtle. The order will impact truckers across North America. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), which includes Canada, the United States, and Mexico, provides guidance for enforcement across all three countries. Yet, you don’t see Mexico mandating Spanish fluency for foreign drivers operating within its borders. Consider places like Laredo, Texas, which are fully bilingual. And in Canada, bilingualism is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — just ask our French friends.
We welcomed these drivers through immigration programs to address a critical driver shortage. Now that the economy is struggling, freight rates are down, and profits are tight, the solution is not to push these workers out. As Canadians, we have a moral obligation to do the right thing.
If language truly is a safety issue, then why does Alberta offer its Class 7 (learner’s license) knowledge test in 25 languages? These include Amharic, Arabic, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), French, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Oromo, Polish, Portuguese, Tagalog, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, and more. If safety starts with comprehension, why not enforce language standards from the very first licensing step?
Currently, there’s no standardized test for “sufficient English.” It's up to each officer’s judgment — a recipe for abuse of authority, especially at a time when the U.S. Department of Transportation is undergoing a workforce reduction plan with DOGE.
Do some of these drivers need to be off the road? Absolutely. But the answer isn’t unemployment and potential deportation — it’s education. Teach them basic English. Put them through a commercial driver refresher. Alberta’s new Red Seal driver program would be a perfect starting point, put your money where your mouth is. If safety is the goal, invest in training. Personally, I’d feel safer sharing the road with an experienced driver who can drive rather than a brand-new driver who speaks the King’s English.
This directive will reduce the number of drivers on the road, creating less competition for what little freight is available. That should drive rates up — and hopefully, that revenue will go toward better wages, not just corporate profit. If drivers earned a living wage, they wouldn’t be forced to speed, drive tired, or risk dangerous weather just to make ends meet.
Poverty wages are a greater safety hazard than limited English. And when the economy rebounds, we’ll be right back in a driver shortage — especially with 48% of Canada’s truck drivers now over the age of 50. The industry isn’t attracting enough young Canadians because the pay simply isn’t worth the risk. Who wants to risk their life on icy highways for $1.00 per kilometre? Canada should not do this, be an example of basic human decency.
The annual CVSA International Roadcheck is May 13–15 2025, and the focus this year is on tires and electronic logging devices (ELDs). If you're operating in Alberta, brace yourself—because I predict the ELD portion of this blitz is going to be an absolute gong show.
Why? Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight has utterly failed to provide direction, interpretation, or training to industry stakeholders and the very inspectors who are tasked with enforcement. I’ve written more than a few blogs about this ongoing ineptitude, and Roadcheck 2025 is about to put it on full display.
The Problem with Alberta’s Approach to ELDs
The ELD regulation was published in 2019, came into force in 2021, and was fully adopted across Canada on January 1, 2023. That means Alberta has had 835 days and counting to provide clear, actionable guidance. And what have they done with that time? Absolutely nothing.
Motor carriers are being penalized roadside and during NSC Standard 15 audits for regulations that Alberta hasn't applied correctly—or consistently. This lack of leadership, guidance, and basic communication is setting the industry up for failure, and during Roadcheck, it amounts to entrapment.
When provinces adopt federal regulations, it's their job to explain what those rules mean to their stakeholders and how they'll be enforced. Alberta's refusal to do this amounts to information hoarding—keeping the industry in the dark so they can issue more penalties. It’s hard to punish an educated industry, and Alberta Transportation knows that.
Let’s break down the key ELD focus areas for Roadcheck 2025, based on the CVSA’s announcement, and what you really need to know.
1. Tampering (The Big One)
Tampering will be a huge issue, especially because Alberta Transportation has failed to pass along critical information. In August 2024, Transport Canada and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) directed provinces that an active data diagnostic event (displayed as a "D" on the ELD) is not a violation—it may resolve on its own once conditions change.
Alberta never told carriers or drivers. Now, during Roadcheck, an inspector may falsely label a diagnostic event as tampering or a disconnected device. This is unacceptable.
2. Driving While Not Logged In
Unidentified driving events are created when a truck moves and no one is logged in, or the driver hasn't Bluetooth-connected to the ECM. This leads to missing mileage and data. Make sure the ELD is paired and connected before moving the vehicle.
3. Odometer Mismatch
There is no regulation that says the ELD mileage must match the truck’s dash odometer. In fact, under the Weights and Measures Act, it’s illegal to alter the truck's odometer. The FMCSA clarified this in 2017: How should the ELD handle the dashboard odometer display not matching the odometer value returned by the ECM? For instance, when the engine is replaced and the value is not synced. If the dashboard odometer display does not match the odometer value returned by the ECM, the ECM odometer value must be identified as the valid value.
4. Improper Edits
Drivers and admins can and should edit to ensure accuracy. For example, if you fuel and then go off-duty but forget to change status, editing that later with a clear annotation is not a violation. Inspectors should be trained to evaluate the context of edits—but in Alberta, don’t count on it.
5. Ghost Drivers & Login Issues
6. Personal Conveyance (PC) Misuse
To legally use PC:
And yes, annotate that you're in PC and state why.
7. Misuse of Adverse Driving Exemption
This isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. If you regularly use adverse driving to extend your hours, expect scrutiny. It’s for unforeseen events, not bad planning.
8. Off-Duty While Working
If you're working—loading, unloading, waiting at a border, even fueling—you’re on-duty. If your BOL shows a 10:00–12:00 loading time and you’re logged off-duty, you’re going to get nailed. Inspectors can and will ask for documentation to verify your RODS.
9. Malfunctions (Critical Omission)
Shockingly, CVSA’s bulletin didn’t mention ELD malfunctions. If your ELD shows an active malfunction, you must:
Failure to do so? Violation.
10. Daily Vehicle Inspection (pre-trip) location not matching RODS location
This is not a violation this a result of ELD programing. The daily vehicle inspection location is derived from GPS. The ELD location is derived from the Canadian Geo-Location Database which is not always the same. The data is coming from 2 different locations.
The bigger problem of Roadcheck and ELD violations, no room to park!
In Canada Roadcheck 2024 inspectors conducted inspections of 5411 commercial vehicles over 72 hours. The hours of service regulations are very specific regarding what violations a driver would be put out-of-service and not able to drive. If even half the drivers have violations for ELDs there is not enough room at the scales or at a roadside inspection area to park 2500 trucks for 8 to 10 or up to 72 hours until the required time off is taken by the driver to not be out of service.
What You Should Actually Do
According to the CVSA bulletin: Inspectors are available to answer questions about tire maintenance and violations, and to help drivers and motor carriers navigate the hours-of-service regulations in their jurisdictions. Based on the hours of service tickets I have encountered from my clients don’t count on it.
If you’re confused about ELD rules—or worse, get a ticket or out-of-service —call or email me before you accept guilt. I’ll help you review and fight it. Think of me as your friendly neighborhood Fairy RODSmother.
Let’s have a safe, successful Roadcheck 2025.
Lloydminster is a city unlike any other in Canada — a true border town straddling the provincial line between Alberta and Saskatchewan. On the surface, it functions as one cohesive community. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find it’s a city caught in the crosshairs of inter-jurisdictional red tape.
Take, for example, the recent changes around food regulation. For decades, something as simple as a meat processor on the Saskatchewan side couldn’t legally sell its product across the street in Alberta. Thankfully, in November, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency updated its regulations to allow for the free flow of food within Lloydminster city limits. One trade barrier down. Dozens more to go.
Trucking in No-Man’s Land
One of the most significant ongoing challenges in Lloydminster is commercial transportation. Unlike the United States, where motor carriers operate under a single federal system, Canada allows each province to set its own rules. The result? A logistical nightmare for trucking companies that operate in and around Lloydminster.
Alberta allows two types of operating statuses for carriers: provincial and federal. A provincial carrier can only operate within Alberta, but has fewer regulatory burdens — no Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs), longer allowable driving hours, and fewer rest period restrictions. Federally regulated carriers, on the other hand, face tighter rules, including mandatory ELDs and 70-hour driving limits over 7 days.
This discrepancy creates a clear competitive advantage for provincial carriers. To patch the hole, Alberta and Saskatchewan created a policy allowing Alberta provincial carriers to operate on either side of Lloydminster under strict conditions:
"Services received or provided" include fuel, meals, accommodations, vehicle repairs, or loading/unloading — essentially any business activity. The only exemption? If those services are provided wholly within Lloydminster city limits. In other words, you can drive through the Saskatchewan side of town — just don’t buy gas, unload freight, or grab a sandwich.
This isn’t a policy designed to facilitate trade. It’s a policy for the sake of having a policy.
Enforcement is Here (and It’s Getting Expensive)
For years, enforcement of these complicated rules was minimal. But things are changing. Alberta has ramped up commercial vehicle enforcement, and Saskatchewan has responded with its own measures through the Saskatchewan Marshals Service.
The penalties are no joke. Operating without the correct Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) in Alberta costs $324 — and that’s just the start. Add on the fine for not having an ELD, possible insurance implications, and violations noted on your carrier profile, and suddenly that “quick job” across the border becomes a costly mistake.
One can easily imagine a newly minted enforcement officer, fresh out of training, parking on the wrong side of Highway 17 and racking up ticket after ticket by stopping Alberta-plated trucks on the Saskatchewan side — or vice versa.
A Real Solution: Cooperation, Not Constriction
The current policy doesn’t help carriers, consumers, or the community. What Lloydminster needs is more than a border exemption — it needs true inter-jurisdictional trade cooperation. Alberta and Saskatchewan should work together to create a registrar’s exemption that allows businesses to operate freely and legally on both sides of the border, especially within the unique context of Lloydminster.
Instead, Alberta Transportation continues to take a reactive approach, crafting policies in response to problems instead of proactively solving them. It’s time for Alberta to step up and lead — not leave businesses stranded in a jurisdictional limbo. In an industry where every hour costs money — especially in oil and gas — these policy gaps aren’t just annoying. They’re expensive, inefficient, and completely unnecessary.
Recent US litigation against JB Hunt raises questions about the threshold for effective carrier driver oversight. As part of the lawsuit against the carrier and driver it is alleged the carrier did not effectively monitor the driver or correct the driver’s behaviour and this lack of oversight contributed to the collision. This case underscores the complexities of internal monitoring regulations for commercial carriers, especially in the absence of clear regulatory guidance.
Regulatory Requirements for Carrier Hours of Service Monitoring
The Federal Hours of Service Regulations (SOR/2005-313) impose several key obligations on carriers:
However, these regulations do not define what constitutes adequate monitoring or what corrective actions are necessary for different violation thresholds, leaving significant room for interpretation.
The JB Hunt Case: A Breakdown of the Allegations
In this case, a JB Hunt driver was involved in a fatal collision in the US while allegedly using his phone on a dating app. This was confirmed with driver facing camera data and phone records. Prior to the collision, two incidents within 6 weeks raised concerns about the driver’s behavior:
The issue in the lawsuit is whether the carrier’s failure to address the previous incidents contributed to the driver’s negligence. This raises a larger question: should a single five-second violation trigger disciplinary action by a carrier?
Industry Standards vs. Regulatory Ambiguity
Carriers receive frequent alerts from electronic logging devices (ELDs) and AI-driven cameras for minor infractions 24 hours a day. Without explicit regulatory guidance, it remains unclear how many brief incremental time violations should warrant carrier intervention. Regulators like Transport Canada, the CCMTA, and Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight have yet to provide an ELD interpretation guide despite the regulation being in effect for four years.
Key considerations include:
Regulatory Harmonization and Compliance Uncertainty
The lack of clear internal monitoring standards complicates enforcement. The Regulations Amending the Contraventions Regulations (SOR/2023-137) propose a $2,000 penalty per driver for a carrier’s failure to monitor. Yet, without concrete guidance, how can regulators fairly assess compliance?
As Transport Canada and the CCMTA work toward inter-provincial regulation harmonization, cases like JB Hunt’s illustrate the pressing need for explicit internal monitoring directives. Incremental time violations are a fact of life in data rich environments like ELDs and driver facing cameras. Clear regulatory guidance is urgently needed and would benefit carriers by ensuring fair enforcement and reducing liability uncertainties.
Conclusion While the JB Hunt case highlights the potential consequences of inadequate monitoring, it also exposes gaps in regulatory clarity. Carriers need definitive guidance on what constitutes effective driver hour of service oversight to ensure compliance and roadway safety. Until such guidance is provided, industry stakeholders remain in a precarious position—balancing operational feasibility with legal risk in an evolving regulatory landscape.
The Alberta government is once again overreaching enforcement powers.
Recently, the U.S.-Canada border has been making headlines, with American officials blaming Canada’s lax border controls for contributing to the U.S. fentanyl crisis and the influx of migrants without status. In response, Canada pledged $1.3 billion to bolster border security, appointed a Fentanyl Czar along with an accompanying staff, and allocated $5.3 million for two Black Hawk helicopters equipped with advanced surveillance technology. One of these helicopters is already stationed in Alberta and has seen extensive use.
The UCP government, never one to miss an opportunity for more “Made in Alberta” enforcement, has now rolled out the $29-million Interdiction Patrol Team (IPT). For that hefty price tag, Alberta gets 51 uniformed officers armed with carbine rifles, four drug-patrol dogs, 10 support staff, four narcotics analyzers, and surveillance drones. Not to be outdone, my favorite minister, Devin Dreeshen, announced three new highway traffic inspection stations for commercial vehicles, costing taxpayers another $15 million.
These inspection stations, located at the U.S. border, will allow sheriffs to monitor commercial vehicles entering and exiting Canada. Many drug busts start with something as simple as a blown taillight or expired registration—just saying. Truckers, no doubt, would prefer to see that $15 million go toward rest areas and better highway line painting, but this is about generating fine revenue and enforcement statistics, not road or community safety.
The Alberta government has also amended the Critical Infrastructure Defence Regulation, adding a two-kilometer-deep border zone north of the U.S.-Canada border to the definition of essential infrastructure under the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act. This change gives peace officers the authority to arrest individuals for trespassing, interfering with, or damaging essential infrastructure. Sheriffs can now arrest individuals suspected of illegally crossing the border or trafficking drugs and weapons—without needing a warrant. A friendlier way of saying “border wall.”
Adding to this enforcement expansion, the government plans to train highway maintenance workers to identify and report suspicious activity of commercial vehicles. There are 2 significant problems with this plan; first this Government is requiring, as part of their employment, highway workers to become informants for the Sheriffs and IPT, snitches in ditches. Secondly unless the Alberta Government is planning to implement implicit bias and racism training this program will end up being the “driving while brown” hotline.
Racism is deeply embedded in all levels of enforcement across Canada, and commercial vehicle enforcement disproportionately targets South Asian drivers, given their high representation in the trucking industry. Institutional bias ensures that these prejudices persist through training and workplace culture.
Commercial drivers are already under near-constant surveillance—highway cameras, electronic logging devices (ELDs), driver-facing cameras, inspection stations, mobile enforcement units (RCMP, sheriffs, IPT, peace officers, bylaw officers, and city police), and now highway maintenance workers? Yes, drug trafficking and migrants without status are real issues, but cracking down on truck drivers is not the answer.
The real problem lies with trucking company owners and managers who enable this trafficking. If a driver goes off-route for three hours to pick up a load of drugs, someone in the company knows. If a driver did it without approval, the driver would be fired, time is money. GPS and ELDs track every movement, making it easy to pinpoint when and where illicit activity happens. Authorities already know which companies are problematic—those operating as “chameleon carriers,” exploiting work permits, or with prior smuggling violations. The issue isn’t a lack of knowledge but a lack of action by regulators and law enforcement.
This growing wave of enforcement highlights a more disturbing trend—government overreach. Warrantless arrests at the border, civilian informants, drone and helicopter surveillance—where does it end? Alberta already has the Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) program, which allows impaired driving charges without a breathalyzer or blood test. Without proper oversight, these powers will inevitably be abused. This is how civil liberties erode, how Charter rights are trampled, and how we edge closer to a 1984 Orwellian reality.
As the first signs of spring emerge, our thoughts turn to highway pavement. Joking, most people don’t think about spring and road bans but, when ruts and potholes destroy your vehicle, you think about it. While they may not be top of mind for everyone, road bans are crucial for preserving infrastructure and preventing costly damage to vehicles and highways.
Why Do Road Bans Exist?
Road bans have been around for as long as roads themselves. In the past, springtime ruts and mud made roads impassable. Today, municipalities formally regulate road bans to protect highways from damage during the thaw cycle. Alberta, thanks to strong infrastructure investments, during the Premier Lougheed era, has an excellent highway system that requires diligent maintenance.
Here’s what happens during the freeze-thaw cycle:
Carrier Responsibilities & Training
Commercial carriers are legally required to train their drivers on weights and dimensions, including seasonal road bans, Alberta Regulation 314/2002 Section 41(1)(h)(i). While MELT (Mandatory Entry-Level Training) includes some instruction on road bans, it is minimal.
For example, MELT Module 6 in Alberta, provides only two and a half hours of classroom legal weights training, with just one and a half pages covering road bans. Compounding the issue, fraudulent licensing schemes in Ontario mean some drivers never received any training at all. The result? A significant number of undertrained drivers coming to destroy a road near you.
Spring Road Training: What Drivers Must Know
A spring road refresher is essential before bans take effect. Drivers must be aware of:
Understanding Road Ban Signs
At intersections of restricted and unrestricted roads, signs display a truck symbol with a percentage below it. This percentage represents the allowable weight on an axle for that road.
Example:
Some exemptions exist for farm commodities and emergencies, but they require permits and approvals from the appropriate authority and highway engineering.
Increased Enforcement & Penalties
Calgary city police have a budget shortfall of 28 million dollars due to the cancellation of the photo speed enforcement on all provincial highways thanks to Minister Dreeshan. Other cities and towns and municipalities are feeling the pinch of lack of funding and reduced revenues. One way to make up these shortfalls is to increase enforcement revenue from other areas and road bans are money makers. Enforcement traps are usually near highways with new restrictions or restrictions that have recently changed. Don’t assume just because it was a 90% ban last year it will be the same this year.
Avoid Costly Fines
Overweight penalties increase exponentially during road ban season. Fines can double compared to the rest of the year, and carriers risk accumulating points on their carrier profiles.
Stay Compliant: Drivers Plan Ahead
By staying informed and proactive, you can avoid hefty fines, protect your vehicles, and help maintain Alberta’s roads for everyone.
