Canada's Trucking Sector Split by Safety Lapses and 20-30% Cost Cheats

Canadian trucking companies that misclassify drivers as independent contractors cut their labour costs by 20 to 30 per cent, according to Teamsters Canada — a structural advantage that lets non-compliant operators undercut carriers that follow federal labour law. That arithmetic, laid bare in a Canadian Press review published Nov. 1, sits at the centre of a sector increasingly divided between firms that invest in training and equipment and firms that treat fines as an operating expense.

What did the investigations find?

Ontario's auditor general reported in May that undercover students enrolled at six truck-driver training schools found two delivered just 59.5 and 81 hours of instruction — far below the mandated 103.5-hour minimum. Two students received no instruction in essential manoeuvres, including left turns at major intersections, reverse parking and emergency stopping.

The audit followed criminal proceedings: in January, Ontario Provincial Police laid 24 charges against eight people after an investigation into alleged fraudulent commercial driving exams in Kingston and the Toronto area. Police said bribes were allegedly exchanged for favourable treatment during road tests.

The pattern extends to licensing and maintenance. Recent government audits, roadside inspections and police investigations have uncovered significant shortcomings in how trucks are maintained and how drivers are licensed, the review found.

How did the industry get here?

The origins trace to the 1980s, when the United States deregulated trucking to boost competition and lower freight rates. Canada followed in 1987, easing restrictions on who could operate a carrier, where they could haul freight and, in some cases, what they could charge.

"It created a situation where anybody with a truck could start a trucking company," Christopher Monette, director of public affairs for Teamsters Canada, said. "It led to a cutthroat level of competition, a massive oversupply in the trucking industry. That drove rates trucking companies charged to shippers way down."

The commercial consequences fell hardest on established carriers — often the firms paying top wages and investing in training, safety and maintenance — which Monette said were slowly driven out of business. As they disappeared, wages stagnated and working conditions declined.

Who is filling the driver shortage?

Federal temporary foreign worker approvals for truck-driver positions rose more than five-fold between 2018 and 2024, from 1,584 to 8,101, before dropping in 2025. Labour advocates allege some carriers favour temporary foreign workers and recent immigrants who accept lower pay and are less likely to report unsafe conditions.

"They turn to vulnerable newcomers," Monette said. "They turn to people who might be afraid to speak out, to turn to a union, or to go to the labour board with safety concerns."

Newcomers are also particularly exposed to misclassification under the so-called Driver Inc. model, in which companies treat drivers as independent contractors to avoid payroll contributions and benefits. Legitimate contractor arrangements are legal; misclassifying employees to dodge obligations violates federal labour law.

What are carriers and trainers saying?

Ken Adams, chairman of the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario, told a House of Commons standing committee last October: "We've seen carriers buy or influence schools to fast-track them through bare-bones programs, undermine the provincial licensing standards and shift the training liability away from these carriers."

Jonathan Blackham, director of policy and public affairs at the Canadian Trucking Alliance, described the split plainly: "We're seeing two industries emerging. One makes investments in their people and equipment and another growing segment has little regard for labour practices, tax compliance, safety and training." The consequence for drivers, he said, is lost training, employment misclassification, unpaid time and pressure to accept unsafe conditions. For shippers and the public, it raises safety questions — "You can't just throw the keys at somebody and say, 'Head out in this blizzard for the first time,'" Blackham said.

Kim Richardson, senior adviser with the Professional Truck Training Alliance of Canada, argued the standards exist; enforcement does not. "The problem is compliance, regulation and enforcement," he said, noting that penalties are often too small to deter repeat violations. "If the fines are just the cost of doing business, we're in trouble."

What are provinces doing?

Provincial responses are accumulating, though unevenly:

• Ontario announced in September a standardized entry-level curriculum, with additional instruction under consideration on fatigue management and driving in northern and remote areas.
• Quebec introduced mandatory training for new drivers in December 2025.
• Alberta adopted an apprenticeship-style licensing system requiring extra training before drivers can operate outside the province.
• Nova Scotia has committed to mandatory entry-level training.
• Manitoba has strengthened enforcement targeting unsafe carriers and firms evading regulatory oversight.

Industry voices welcome the moves but insist existing law, better enforced, would do most of the work. "You don't need to invent new laws or pass new legislation to make an impact in this industry," Monette said. "Once you start enforcing the law as it's written, you can have a huge impact." Blackham framed the stakes commercially: without accountability, rule-following carriers compete at a structural disadvantage. "We want the trucking industry to compete on a level playing field," he said.

Richardson's closing argument is that commercial driving be recognized as a skilled trade, with training reflecting the responsibility of operating some of the largest vehicles on Canadian roads. "Let's legitimize the profession of these highway pilots," he said.

For shippers and forwarders sourcing Canadian road capacity, the immediate question is due diligence: as provincial training mandates spread and enforcement tightens, the cost gap between compliant and non-compliant carriers — that 20 to 30 per cent labour arbitrage — is the number most likely to shrink.