A fatal collision in Brandon, Man., that claimed the life of a 49-year-old woman has once again put a spotlight on a problem the trucking industry has been warning governments about for years: chameleon carriers.

The details are by now well known. A semi-truck driver has been charged with dangerous driving causing death after allegedly running a stop sign at highway speed. The carrier involved had previously lost its safety fitness certificate in Manitoba, only to re-emerge in Alberta under a slightly different name and continue operating.

What’s most frustrating about this tragedy is that it did not expose a previously unknown loophole. Governments, regulators, and trucking associations have been discussing the chameleon carrier phenomenon for years.

In 2023, Manitoba announced plans to target carriers that close one operation and reopen under a new name rather than addressing safety deficiencies. At the time, Manitoba Trucking Association executive director Aaron Dolyniuk applauded the move, saying carriers with compliance issues should not simply be able to shut down and restart with a new safety fitness certificate. Their history, he argued, should follow them.

That was three years ago.

Today, the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Manitoba Trucking Association, and government officials are once again calling for stronger interprovincial data sharing, a national carrier registry, and tougher oversight of carriers that attempt to evade accountability by changing jurisdictions.

The obvious question is: Why are we still talking about this?

The trucking industry certainly isn’t lacking awareness of the problem. In fact, some of the strongest calls for action have come from within the industry itself. Responsible carriers understand that chameleon operators undermine public trust and create an uneven playing field for companies that invest in maintenance, training, compliance, and safety.

Inspections cited as a nuisance

The comments made by the former operator of the Manitoba carrier to CBC News were particularly troubling. Asked about the circumstances surrounding the loss of the company’s safety fitness certificate, he complained about “inspection, inspection, inspection” and described the process as a headache.

That response should concern anyone who shares the road with heavy trucks.

Inspections are not a nuisance. They are not unnecessary red tape. They are one of the primary tools regulators use to identify unsafe vehicles, deficient maintenance practices, and non-compliant operators before tragedy strikes.

A carrier does not lose its safety fitness certificate because it was inspected too often. It loses that privilege when inspections, audits, and enforcement actions repeatedly uncover problems serious enough to warrant intervention.

The overwhelming majority of trucking companies understand this. They welcome a level playing field and recognize that public confidence in the industry depends on accountability.

The real issue exposed by the Brandon tragedy is not that Manitoba identified a problem carrier. By all accounts, the system worked. Inspections were conducted. Audits were completed. Warnings were issued. The carrier’s safety fitness certificate was ultimately revoked.

The failure came afterward.

Tragedy ‘should not have happened’

Somehow, a carrier deemed unfit to operate in one province was able to continue operating elsewhere.

As Dolyniuk recently wrote on trucknews.com, “That accident should not have happened, because that truck should not have been at that intersection. That company should not have been in business.”

Those are strong words, but they reflect a growing frustration within the trucking industry. Carriers that play by the rules are tired of competing against operators who view compliance as optional. They are tired of seeing bad actors move between jurisdictions while regulators struggle to connect the dots.

This is not a call for more regulations. The rules already exist. Safety fitness certificates exist. Audits exist. Enforcement mechanisms exist.

What is missing is a coordinated national approach that prevents carriers from escaping the consequences of their actions by changing names or moving across provincial borders.

The trucking industry has identified the problem. Provincial governments have acknowledged the problem. Auditors have highlighted the problem. Industry associations have proposed solutions.

The Brandon tragedy should serve as a reminder that discussions and working groups are no substitute for action.

Canadians deserve confidence that when a carrier loses its authority to operate because of serious safety concerns, that decision will follow the company wherever it tries to do business. Anything less leaves the public — and responsible trucking companies — paying the price.