This is the year to improve MELT
This year promises new and positive opportunities regarding mandatory entry-level training (MELT) in Canada. For starters, Newfoundland officially implemented its MELT program on Jan. 3. The other Atlantic provinces will follow suit in the coming months.
The parameters of their training programs will align with National Safety Code 16: the minimum training standard that all provinces and territories developed in 2021. This standard consists of 103.5 hours of training (36.5 hours in-class, 17 hours in-yard, and 50 hours in-cab) before the road test.
The Atlantic provinces will give the green light for students to learn on and take the road test with either an automatic or manual transmission – with the disclaimer that a restriction will be placed on their licence if they pass the test while driving an automatic transmission. This rule applies to all jurisdictions across Canada that allow a road test to be completed in an auto-shift.
Meanwhile, Quebec has developed a 135-hour MELT program that’s currently being piloted by four schools. Once the pilot program is complete, the province plans to implement its MELT program this year.
Ontario’s MELT program was the first one to be implemented in 2017. The Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) and other provincial and federal associations were involved in consultations for the MELT program, beginning in 2015.
This year, Ontario – under the regulation of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities (MCU) – will review the program and make changes, which may include a mandatory certification program for driving instructors.
Manitoba – under the regulation of Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) – recently made changes to its program to improve oversight and Alberta is reviewing its program. Why the sudden push for change?
Quality programs, drivers and oversight
Over the years our industry has watched thousands of students enroll in MELT programs and witnessed a progressive decrease in the quality of those programs and their graduates.
There are many good schools out there that offer MELT programs and produce good quality students; the problem is the oversight of schools – in particular newer ones that have been approved to teach MELT and that haven’t been monitored or audited for quality assurance and consistency.
For example, Ontario has more than 225 schools that are currently approved to teach MELT. In 2017, the province had fewer than 100.
The significant bump in approved schools – matched with the fact that MCU has only eight inspectors who monitor, audit, review and approve all truck training schools in addition to all other MCU-offered courses/programs throughout the province – creates oversight shortfalls.
Meanwhile, in Manitoba, there are 32 approved schools to teach MELT, in addition 500 driving schools across the province including those who train car drivers, and only two inspectors to monitor all of them.
Within this oversight lies other issues, such as inconsistencies in cost and quality of the MELT programs. Unfortunately, there are schools out there that are taking advantage of their approved status by charging less money, driving more business, and offering less training, buckling the system and creating challenges for schools and carriers that operate legitimately and provide the minimum training that is required.
Instructor certification
Another key component to MELT is the quality of instruction. Currently, truck training certification is not a mandatory requirement in all jurisdictions. This creates inconsistencies throughout a program we’re trying to standardize.
Over the years, the PMTC and other provincial and federal associations voiced the need for instructor certification to be mandated. Our hope is that this component will be a part of the recent push to improve each province’s MELT programs. With these challenges come opportunities for improvement and change.
Third-party audits
With consideration to the oversight occurring across the nation, the opportunity to bring in a third-party auditor comes to mind. Each province’s MELT program is monitored by its provincial government or crown insurance corporation; if these authorities don’t have the time or resources, each province could approve third-party auditors that the schools would hire to ensure they are providing the training that is required, on the equipment that is required, with properly qualified instructors.
The schools would pay for this auditing service, which offers the peace of mind in knowing that every school is audited regularly. Non-compliant schools will be shut down.
Post-licence training
Our industry needs to incorporate post-licence training for MELT graduates. These entry-level drivers need industry experience gained through mentorship, coaching, and advanced training via their new employer. While many quality carriers do this already, others do not provide the support a new driver needs.
The PMTC is a part of Trucking HR Canada’s National Occupational Standard (NOS) group, a national committee that’s been working on modernizing the NOS for truck drivers.
This includes the development of a post-licence training/apprenticeship program that will provide carriers with training guides specific to entry-level drivers. This program – and the research and work required to update and provide mentorship training guides – was funded by the federal government, will be voluntary to start, and will equip companies with the tools to prepare drivers entering the field.
This program is currently being piloted by carriers and will be released this year. The goal is to have a post-licence training/apprenticeship program approved by each provincial government and become a mandatory apprenticeship program model.
By the end of 2024, every province and territory – with the exception of Yukon (queued for legislation in 2025) – should have its MELT program in place. Is MELT consistent throughout the country? No, but the reality is the required number of hours (whether in the classroom, yard, or cab) is irrelevant with the level of oversight occurring.
Carriers across Canada have an incredible opportunity to recruit, hire and shape new entry-level drivers to their workplace culture, operations and deep-rooted practices on safety, health, and compliance, with the added help and support of Trucking HR Canada’s post-licence training/apprenticeship program.
These steps will help drive the number of new hires, create consistency in our workforce, and relieve our national driver shortage.
Have your say
This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.
The schools still continue to operate with pass/fail mentality. The access to public funds is also concerning as many qualified applicants have no intention of being commercial truck or bus operators. Poorly administered tests during the training does not accurately ascertain or correct the necessary skills needed as a professional driver.
Mike you are bang on. MELT is only as good as the integrity of the school that is delivering it! Audit and enforcement is just about nonexistent and the idea of 3rd party audits is a good one. In the short term it would help to have carriers publicly endorse the schools that are providing well trained drivers to them so the public and those agencies providing retraining dollars know where they should invest their money.
British Columbia is two years into MELT and have built a strong program but I don’t believe for a second that the majority of schools are meeting all of the criteria. The BC program contains 13 skills evaluations that the students must pass twice to qualify, yet many who have supposedly met the criteria can’t pass a government road test at a lower standard?
We need to expose the fraudulent MELT schools across the Country as they are making the entire program a joke.
Let me know how I can help.
Andy Roberts
Mountain Transport Institute Ltd
Castlegar BC
I have been a critic of MELT from the first day it stated in Ontario. It is a pathetically low standard driver training program. It is responsible for putting 1000’s of unqualified drivers on our highways and our collisions records support that. Insurance is not allowing fleets to hire drives if all they have is MELT training so now we have 1000’s of MELT trai ed drivers who are currently unemployed.
MELT is nothing more than a knee jerk react by governments after the Humboldt crash.
As an industry we should be ashamed of MELT and what it did to safety and individuals.
-
You are 90 percent correct the gov and the trucking companies put having a large number of cheaper drivers ahead of safety
of drivers and the public and caused many crashes
Driver Training and MELT- approach to professionalism
Right on Mike! These are the beginnings. The end goal for drivers is pride in accomplishment and professionalism. The white elephant in the room is adequate compensation, security and recognition for the driver.
Recognition comes from measurement.
Hardly a driver in the room wants to be evaluated, or re-evaluated. So drivers are tripping over their own egos on the path to recognition and reward. The accompanying problem is the fairness of the test.
A “Commercial Driver “ driver drives anything from a motorcycle to a Platform trailer hauling 100,000 tonne of steel structure, or a bus full of celebrities. That just highlights the diversity.
Our focus in this venue is the Tractor Trailer driver and driver professionalism. However the measurable mark of professionalism and accomplishment needs to be determined by commodity. Transport crosses all industries, so there should a different set of measuring sticks if I am to haul milk or to hall concrete, or haul 9 axle jeeps and boosters. To see the standards of accomplishment, the standard of MELT is simply the process of licensing to manipulate a tractor trailer, void of any lecture to operate any distinct specialized equipment or commodity. The system and curriculum of mentorship and evaluation is key to any mark of proficiency.
Any carrier must have a trained mentor to teach and vet the employee in the ways and means of product handling and system operation, and vet the driving abilities. We must break down the tractor trailer operation into manageable segments and create columns of study/curriculum/evaluation to recognize handling a removable gooseneck has different challenges than loading/unloading pneumatic trailers. Steering and gearing and momentum changes from operatiing an empty flat deck to accommodating the slop in a fuel B Train. Cargo securing systems are different from commodity to commodity. Each time we move from one sector to a different sector is a new beginning. We start over at the bottom.
I have suffered some of these successes and indignities in my 20 year driving career, and tried to pass along those teaching points in 24 years of Tractor Trailer driving instruction. My biggest failure in my later life was supplying enough incentive to drivers to become instructors, trainers or coaches at my driving school. My hardest job was to fill the passenger seat with good knowledgeable instructional skills while apprenticing the rookie through his lessons of driving and operation. I have had very few carriers take up the offer to have seasoned drivers be trained on coaching / mentoring practices and evaluation techniques.
So I wish to identify two problems here that are the huge impediments to better truck drivers;
training, recognition and certification of industry coach mentors, and;
stratification of the subsets of driving careers, training, and recognition of individual disciplines. ( bulk hauling has different skills than hauling LTL, even though steering and gearing may be common to both.)
Every carrier should have to have a trained coach mentor (documented) on staff or contracted, and an indoctrination curriculum and evaluation of 2-6 weeks including drive times. The curriculum must include the transport equipment to be driven, the special equipment to provide operated, cargo control, weights and dimensions, review of hours of service/ELD, Vehicle inspection, bills of lading and paper management, company protocol and emergency resources. Triennial in-person classroom review and reevaluation should be mandatory.
Office girls performing on line compliance training has to stop. They know more about the rules of the road than the driver they represent. Cross talk in a classroom has very much value of shared experience and update of the curriculum.
The program should be auditable.
In the perfect world, Insurance credits should be offered based on carrier performance.
Note to drivers- Never go to work one day past a missed pay cheque. Cut your losses and move on. All training time at a carrier is considered ON Duty and should be compensated. Intellectual training should be taken during daylight hours and experiential training may happen at all hours of the day as that may be the task to perform.
Lack of Vigilance of Driver training
Truck Driver Training schools are popping up like pimples of a rash. Tuition fees are dropping like a rock.
I don’t know how you can provide 103 hours of training for less that $100 / hour.
Quick math. You have to provide a tractor trailer with a chair in the bunk for the second student, a 48 foot van or flat deck trailer, a dedicated yard, an adequate classroom. An office area for staff that in my experience is often calculated at 1 staff member per 2 instructors, plus storage for records archiving.
I certainly don’t wish to increase my tax and insurance bills any more. I don’t like government in my business any more than necessary but I sense the competition has to be corrupt when prices fall below $5000.00 for 103 hours not including air brake training.
I listen to students from other driving schools complain to me about crowded trucks, (limit 2 per truck), 6- 8 months of waiting to be scheduled in the truck, cash payments with no receipt, which I would understand to mean they have had no commitment contract forwarded to them upon engagement with the school.
Maybe the audit should include financial audit to determine financial stability. As if CRA is not already busy enough.
We have a maximum tuition of $10,000.00 allowed in Alberta. I never thought that was necessary, the problem is corruption and competition rules the marketplace, causing quality work and quality instruction being reduced to the lowest bidder.
MELT only creates a minimum standard of curriculum.
Look for a school that offers full curriculum in a timely fashion that can offer completion and a contract. All your time and training is to be documented in writing. For a fair price. Depending on student availability and capability, driver candidates at a quality driving school will complete their training in less than 90 days, most in 8 weeks.
Dale Francis operated a Driver Training facility in Alberta for 18 years.
I am a licensed MELT instructor in Alberta. I’m proud of the level of instruction our school offers and the high per cent age of our students that pass their road test on their first try.
With that said there are many holes in the program. First when it comes to the Class 3 license. With a class 3 license you can legally operate some big trucks, ie gravel trucks, cement trucks, vac trucks, tandem body jobs. This license can be obtained with as little as 8 hours instruction, 4 hours yard work 4 hours in cab driving. No classroom training. This makes no sense to me.
Secondly language skills. An English comprehension test both written and oral should be prerequisite for obtaining a commercial driver license of any class. I believe Ontario require this.
In Alberta training occurs with empty trailers. This is unacceptable there should be at least 20,000 pounds in the trailers for a more realistic experience.
You say a review of the program is happening in Alberta. Don’t know of any instructors that have been consulted. Many of the examiners while having a class 1 licence lack sufficient practical experience to assess driving skills. And a 20 minute road test. Really?