The great divide within Canada’s trucking industry was on full display during months-long parliamentary transport committee hearings into the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada.

The hearings, which began last October and continued into February, included 59 witnesses and more than 24 hours of testimony. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, made up of 10 federal Members of Parliament, were held to shed light on trucking issues ranging from truck safety and driver abuse, to the driver classification scheme known as Driver Inc. But, mostly testimonies returned to Driver Inc.

“Driver Inc. is not innovation. It’s exploitation disguised as flexibility,” blasted Johanne Couture, executive director of the Women’s Trucking Federation of Canada. “It misclassifies employee drivers as independent contractors, stripping them of basic protections while allowing carriers to dodge source deductions that fund social programs. These drivers lose out on benefits and face added liabilities in the event of a workplace accident. This model rewards evasion and punishes compliance.”

She told lawmakers that “for small and mid-sized carriers, Driver Inc. is a death sentence,” citing the undercutting of rates needed to compliance and support safety programs.

Quebec was well represented during the hearings. “What will become of us?” wondered Veronique Gagnon, vice president, Transport St-Pamphile. “Is there any way out of this nightmare?”

What began as an Ontario problem – the classification of employee drivers as independent contractors – has spread across the country, including into Quebec. But Ontario-plated trucks are usually blamed as the source of the spread, and Ground Zero for the long-running problem. Throughout the hearings, the misclassification of drivers was tied to deteriorating truck safety and ethical behaviors.

“Our vehicles get hit in trucks stops, but we are never compensated for the damage caused,” Gagnon said. “When they can, they take advantage of our stops at pumps to steal fuel from us. They don’t know how their trucks work.”

She explained that one of her drivers had to help a suspected Driver Inc. driver to open their hood upon Customs officer direction.

“Mr. Chair, opening the hood is a mandatory step every morning during the pre-trip inspection,” she said incredulously. “We have also seen people pour windshield washer fluid on the ground to try to get traction on icy roads. That’s not how the profession works. These people lack knowledge. They are dangerous, they don’t respect driving hours, they don’t pay their fees, they don’t maintain their equipment, they aren’t insured and they’re all underpaid.”

Such concerns were echoed throughout the hearings. Some witnesses appeared as individuals, others representing businesses, industry organizations or associations. And in addition to blaming the misclassification of drivers for the industry’s problems, they also raised concerns about inadequate training requirements.

“I’m here because what is happening in the trucking industry is no longer just a business problem; it has become a public safety issue,” said Vince Tarantini, president of Ontario-based Carmen Transportation Solutions. “This crisis has outgrown provincial tools alone and now requires increased federal collaboration. Provincially, in Ontario, I am increasingly concerned about driver licensing and training. People are entering the industry with credentials that do not match the actual competency.”

The impact of the issues raised during the hearings were far-reaching. Réjean Breton, CEO of the Quebec towing group, the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec, told the committee that Driver Inc. trucks that break down or are involved in accidents are often towed away and never recovered, left in impound lots for the tow companies to discard of at their own expense.

Many are uninsured, Breton said, and permanently left occupying storage space in yards and contributing to environmental damage.

“If we sometimes dare to accept payment of an invoice by credit card, it is cancelled a few hours later by the driver associated with the Driver Inc. model, who claims to have been a victim of fraud,” he said. Breton, among others, called on Ottawa to bring some accountability to shippers over who they hire to move their goods.

“We also believe that shippers who financially benefit from the Driver Inc. phenomenon must be part of the administrative and operational responsibility chain because, by turning a blind eye, they’re complicit in this national scam,” he said.

The other side

However, proponents of the independent contractor model were also present to defend their interests, including the classification of drivers as independent contractors. Arjun Vishwanth, policy advisor of the Canada Truck Operators Association, condemned the use of the term ‘Driver Inc.’

“Driver Inc. is not a legal status,” he contended. “It appears in no statute, no regulation and no court decision. It’s a label manufactured and weaponized by lobby groups representing large monopolistic carriers that have lost their competitive edge and that have now chosen to destroy their competition instead of improving their own performance.”

He decried increased racism seen in the industry, often directed toward South Asian drivers associated with companies suspected of using independent contractors.

He questioned arguments by industry lobby groups that carriers use independent contractors to dodge taxes and disputed claims that more than $1 billion in taxes go unpaid each year due to the arrangement.

“This number has never appeared in any CRA audit or federal budget report. It originates from a flawed lobbying costing model that treats HST as income, ignores caps on CPP and EI, assumes employer health tax, from which small carriers are exempt, and flattens WSIB premiums that are actually experience-rated,” Vishwanth said. “When these errors are corrected, the claimed loss collapses roughly to 95%. There is no billion-dollar loss to the treasury. There’s a billion-dollar lie in the public discourse.”

Instead, Vishwanth said drivers choose to incorporate because it’s a path to independence and entrepreneurship. And with the price of a new truck exceeding $200,000, he said those are goals that are increasingly unfeasible if ownership of the truck is considered a required element of independence.

“I would make that one recommendation, which is to remove the test that says you need to show or display ownership of equipment and replace it with voluntariness: Does the driver choose to incorporate voluntarily without coercion?” Vishwanch suggested. “That would modernize that test. That would also get rid of all your issues with taxes and safety, because someone who has a stake in the game is safe. People who have a stake in the game will pay their taxes and will operate a safe fleet.”

Amarot Singh Sahney appeared as an individual who has worked as company driver and owner-operator, noting that the driver’s perspective was underrepresented. He argued that drivers are not forced to incorporate; instead it’s something they choose to do when they obtain their permanent resident status because they’ve often endured years of abuse during their initial years working as truck drivers in Canada.

“During those two or three years, many workers work under slave-like conditions just to maintain their status and to achieve their PR, which is permanent residency,” he said. “They are assigned routes that established drivers don’t want to take. They spend 36-hour resets on the road away from home. They are often sent to remote provinces that struggle to fill trucking positions, and they have low, fixed salaries. This is simply to secure their permanent residency.”

Incorporating allows drivers to regain flexibility and family balance, Sahney said, by taking time off work for family commitments or to visit family abroad.

“Finally, incorporation represents an entrepreneurial opportunity to many immigrant drivers who are naturally entrepreneurial,” he concluded. “Incorporation gives them a sense of ownership and a chance to follow the same path that many large fleet owners once did, starting from one single truck and building their business from the ground up.”

It should be noted, truck ownership under a traditional owner-operator business model is not in dispute. But that’s not the path sought by most drivers today, argued Jeff Hall, president of J&R Hall, one of the final witnesses called. He suggested driver misclassification is actually a threat – not a pathway — to entrepreneurship.

“About six out of 10 drivers who apply at our place want to be illegitimate contractors,” he said. “Simply put, there’s not enough being done to protect the future of family businesses that are in jeopardy. Our industry has unfortunately attracted some of the lowest calibre participants in recent years, whose lack of ethics and respect for law and order is jeopardizing family businesses that took decades of care investment and credibility to build.”

What comes next?

With witness testimony largely complete, the House of Commons transport committee now shifts from hearings to decisions. Parliamentary analysts will draft a report summarizing evidence and proposing federal actions, which could range from stronger enforcement of driver classification rules to new safety, training, or immigration measures affecting the trucking workforce.

Committee members will review that draft in private before tabling a final report in the House of Commons.