Transport Committee on Jan. 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 18 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and the motions adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, and on Thursday, December 11, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I'd like to take a moment to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses and our members.

First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I'll remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

Appearing before us today, from 6S Trinity Transport Ltd., we have Stacey Horlings, the owner, joining us by video conference. Welcome.

From J&R Hall Transport Inc., we have Mr. Jeff Hall, president. Welcome to you.

From Ludwig Transport Limited, we have Mr. Michael Ludwig, operations manager.

I want to thank all three of you for joining us today.

We're now going to proceed with opening remarks. For that, I will turn the floor over to Ms. Horlings.

The floor is yours for your opening remarks. You have five minutes, please.

[Stacey Horlings, Owner, 6S Trinity Transport Ltd.]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Stacey Horlings, and I am a business owner in the transportation sector. I'm here today because Canada's trucking industry is facing a serious and growing problem. This issue is not theoretical. It's happening right now to real businesses in every province.

At its core, the problem is simple: Freight brokers and trucking companies that are brokering freight are not required to carry a surety bond when operating domestically. This gap has allowed anybody, regardless of experience and financial capacity or ethics, to open a freight broker business, hire a trucking company to do the work, then collect money from customers and disappear without paying the trucking companies that actually move the freight.

Trucking companies provide the service and pay for the fuel, insurance, registration and maintenance only to be left with an unpaid invoice and no recourse. While legal action is technically available, in practice, it is slow, costly and ineffective. In many cases, it requires interprovincial enforcement of judgments, forcing carriers to spend additional time and money transferring court orders from one province to another.

In numerous cases, by the time the judgment is secured, the broker has closed the business, dissolved the corporation and reappeared under a different company name, rendering the judgment effectively worthless. This creates a system in which bad actors face minimal consequences while legitimate trucking companies absorb the financial loss, the legal costs and the painful financial trickle-down effect these things have.

As an example, brokers in other industries are required to be licensed, regulated and financially accountable. Take insurance and real estate brokers as an example. They have strict licensing requirements, carry an errors and omissions insurance policy and, in many cases, maintain a bond or trust account to protect clients from financial loss due to fraud, misappropriation and misconduct. The same safeguards are desperately needed in the transportation industry.

In the United States, the FMCSA requires any company that brokers freight to carry a surety bond as a condition of operating. I might add that this has recently been updated to prevent unstable freight brokers from engaging in business that will financially harm the transportation companies.

A surety bond does three critical things. First, it establishes credibility. A broker must demonstrate financial responsibility before being allowed to operate. Second, it protects carriers and shippers. If a broker fails to pay, the bond ensures compensation. Third, it enforces accountability. Brokers who fail to comply lose their authority.

This is not excessive regulation, but basic financial responsibility. Canada currently lacks these protections, and bad actors know it. Requiring a surety bond would protect trucking companies and level the playing field for ethical brokers. More importantly, I believe this will help restore trust across our industry and prevent honest businesses from being unfairly punished.

I urge the committee to recommend a framework to be put into place that would require mandatory surety bonds for freight brokers. Trucking companies are not asking for special treatment. They're asking to be paid for the work already done. As a follow-up, if I'm allowed the time, I would like to share how I believe the safety on the road ties in with financial accountability.

Thank you for your time. I welcome questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Horlings. I'm sure you'll be able to share that information when one of the members asks you a question on the subject.

I just want to share with the two witnesses who are here in person that I have a yellow card and a red card. The yellow card is to let you know that your time is running out. The red card means your time has ended. I don't want to cut you off, but to ensure that there's equity of time amongst members, I'm going to be very strict with the time today.

Mr. Ludwig, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes, sir.

[Michael Ludwig, Operations Manager, Ludwig Transport Limited]

Thank you.

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Michael Ludwig. I operate a family-run trucking company based in Simcoe, Ontario, which has been in operation since 1961. We operate dry vans, refrigerated equipment and intermodal containers throughout North America. We have survived multiple industry cycles by focusing on compliance, safety and long-term sustainability.

I am here today not as a representative of any association or as a theorist, but as an operator living with the real-world consequences of what is commonly referred to as Driver Inc.

I have provided the committee with a written submission outlining evidence, impacts and recommendations. Today I want to focus on what this looks like from the operator's seat.

In plain language, Driver Inc. is not self-employment: It is the misclassification of employees as independent contractors in order to avoid payroll taxes and basic employment protections. Drivers labelled as independent do not control their rates, customers or working conditions, yet they are made responsible for compliance, risk and long-term financial security without real entrepreneurial risk or genuine independence.

What is occurring is payroll fraud that has become normalized across large portions of the trucking industry.

Driver Inc. did not emerge because carriers are inherently malicious; it emerged because trucking operates on extremely thin margins. Enforcement is fragmented, and price—not compliance—has become the dominant factor in shipper decision-making. When enforcement is inconsistent and the market rewards the lowest price, regardless of how it is achieved, non-compliance becomes a competitive advantage. This creates a system in which compliant carriers are punished while non-compliant ones are rewarded.

The damage from this model falls into four main areas.

The first is legitimate carriers. Over the last 42 months, in one of the worst and longest downturns this industry has experienced, either compliant carriers have exited the market or they are now seriously considering the adoption of Driver Inc. simply to survive. This pressure is structural, not moral.

The second is the drivers. Drivers operating under Driver Inc. are often led to believe they are earning more, but they are trading away CPP, EI, workers' compensation coverage and long-term financial security. They are one injury, one enforcement action or one economic downturn away from collapse.

Third is government. CPP and EI contributions are lost. Income tax revenue is deferred or never collected. When reassessments finally occur, the money is often gone, usually out of the country, and the companies no longer exist.

The fourth is safety. When responsibility is fragmented, accountability weakens. Hours-of-service violations become easier to hide, maintenance is deferred and equipment standards slip. When everyone is labelled as independent, it becomes unclear who is ultimately responsible for safety outcomes on Canadian roads.

Enforcement has not kept pace with the scale of the problem. CRA action is largely reactive and often occurs after the damage is done.

The most troubling part of this reality is that I am sitting here today before lawmakers describing a system that can push otherwise compliant carriers toward illegality simply to survive.

More guidance documents or voluntary compliance initiatives will not solve the issue. Drivers are not in a position to challenge the structure they are placed in, and carriers will not police themselves. Compliant operators cannot survive in a system in which enforcement is optional. What would make a difference is predictable, early and coordinated enforcement, meaning joint action from the CRA, labour authorities and transportation regulators, with real consequences for deliberate misclassification and with accountability that reaches those who knowingly benefit from non-compliant pricing.

This is not about eliminating legitimate owner-operators. Genuine independent contractors exist and should continue to exist. This is about ensuring that independence is real and not fictional.

Driver Inc. is no longer a loophole at the margins of the industry. It is rapidly becoming the dominant operating model. If nothing changes, Canada risks losing its compliant trucking industry entirely. Once that capacity is gone, it will not be easy to rebuild.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ludwig.

Next we'll go to Mr. Hall.

Mr. Hall, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

[Jeff Hall, President, J&R Hall Transport Inc.]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Allow me to say thanks for your efforts to date on the topic of the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada. It's my genuine hope that we can make a difference and change the direction of an industry that has supported my family for four generations, and I hope, a fifth. I have time; the fifth's top age is only 11.

Here is a quick history of J&R Hall. We have 270 staff members, from Ontario to British Columbia. We haul expedited high-value products for about 500 customers. We operate 110 trucks, and we have six terminals across Canada. We employ staff from each province in western Canada. My grandfather began in 1949. Throughout the years, there have been a few name changes, from John T. Hall & Son to Drumbo Transport, Ayrline Transport and lastly, since 1987, J&R Hall Transport, all owned by my family.

Our industry and my family appreciate the commitment of the federal government to involving the CRA and ESDC in controlling the lawlessness in trucking. However, we have a long way to go. Even today, six out of 10 drivers who apply at our place want to be illegitimate contractors, known as Driver Inc. Simply put, there is not enough being done, and the future of my family business is in jeopardy.

In recent years, our industry has unfortunately attracted some of the lowest-calibre participants. The lack of ethics and respect for law and order is jeopardizing my family business, which took decades of care, investment and credibility to build.

We are competing with individuals who stole five trucks out of my yard in 2025 alone. We operate in rural Ontario on my grandfather's farm, not in a major urban area. We have since recovered four; most had our decals and the VIN numbers removed and have gone to the downside.

I would like to stress that we worked to recover our vehicles with our own resources. Our police had no interest in investigating these crimes, nor were there consequences for the individuals who stole my trucks.

These trucks, which have my family name on them, were undoubtedly going to be used for illegal purposes. Carriers and nefarious fleets operate the trucks unsafely and illegally, and they put every one of us at risk every day. Check out the trucks on the road today with the green hoods, white cabs and yellow doors, and you'll see brand B carriers. As a child, I remember very well driving with my father in bad weather: “Pull in behind a truck. We'll be safe.” Today, nobody wants to be near a truck, and frankly, I don't blame them.

On that note, I'd also like to address safety. Less than half of 1% of fleets today have an “excellent” CVOR safety rating. I'm proud to say we do. Many of the brand B fleets we compete with do not share our vision for safety, yet all of us and our families share the road with them. Many are unaudited because they don’t have an office or don't have employees. They have Driver Inc. They have contractors, and there is no proof of a documented company. Imagine if they were constantly visited by ESDC and Transport Canada, as we have been, to the tune of five—yes, five—audits this year.

Likewise, inspection scales are not open 24-7 throughout our country and can be easily avoided by carriers that operate dangerously. Our trucks cross the scales. We have bypass systems in our trucks to go past the scales, especially in British Columbia, due to our consistent safety record and performance.

Unscrupulous fleets are also allowed to utilize facility insurance or government insurance as if it were no big deal. The reason they do this is that they are too great a risk for normal insurance. Well, if the shoe fits, put it on. Don't let them be in business. Why do our provincial governments invest in bad businesses with my tax dollars?

Please allow me to comment on how we can ensure and enhance truck safety by addressing the lack of places for drivers to stop and rest in Canada, specifically Ontario.

As you may know, hours of service regulations for drivers determine route planning and trip planning. In the U.S., we have rest stops with heated washrooms that are cleaned daily, at a minimum, and vending machines that provide drinks and snacks for drivers. In fact, the U.S. government is actively planning to expand and increase their investment in rest stops.

Today, in northern Ontario, our drivers have little to nothing compared with these amenities. We're constantly asked not to park in service centres, because they don't have room. At some scales, we are provided with portable washrooms that don't get cleaned. Our snowplow turnouts in northern Ontario are so disgustingly dirty that you don't even want to drive into them, and they're rarely cleaned or policed.

We desperately need rest stops with parking and at least some services in northern Ontario. We also need snow removal equipment in places like Batchawana Bay. Accidents are often caused by poorly trained drivers or untrained drivers, but often winter maintenance is virtually non-existent. The stretch of road from Sault Ste. Marie to White River along the east end of Lake Superior is the worst section of road in the province, due to weather and wildlife.

We have installed moose bumpers on our trucks to protect us; wouldn't it be a novel idea for the province to try to protect every traveller in that section, as well as the wildlife?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Hall, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, if that's okay. If you have any final points, I want to let you know that you could submit a written submission so that we can include it in the testimony.

[Jeff Hall]

In closing, I would like to say thank you again for the invitation to speak. Thank you for the time spent to consider the needs of the industry and what the fifth generation of my family will need to succeed in the transportation industry. If I can ever be of assistance moving forward, I'm all in.

Please, let's stop talking about these problems; let's get something done about them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.

We'll go right into our line of questioning, and for that, we'll turn the floor over to Ms. Cody.

Ms. Cody, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, please.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Through you, I want to thank all the witnesses for coming out today. It's a really important issue being brought to this committee.

My first question is for Mr. Hall.

Cambridge is a hub of the trucking sector. Many people tell me they feel uneasy when they are driving on the road with transport trucks, and even more so with the increased accidents and all the unsafe driving that is witnessed. Recently, many have been calling our northern roads a death trap.

From your experience, how would you assess the overall safety standards in the trucking sector, both in driver training and truck maintenance? What concerns do you see on the road today? Would a national strategy help resolve the issues?

[Jeff Hall]

Recently we've seen driver schools put out of business for unfit practices. This has contributed to the poor quality of the drivers on the road.

I mentioned the northern Ontario part of it. Poor road conditions contribute, but some of the drivers shouldn't be allowed to go further north than Barrie without training. Drivers need to be trained.

I would personally recommend a graduated licence system. Today drivers can go on a three-month program and then be given a B-train loaded with 150,000 pounds of gasoline to take to Vancouver. They don't have training for that, so they definitely need more training.

A national program would help, and I'd love to be a part of trying to arrange it.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

You also noted that a lack of adequate rest areas on the highways across Canada has real labour force impacts. Women drivers often face added challenges when safe facilities aren't available.

Given the federal role in extraprovincial trucking and national transportation corridors, can you expand on how the shortage of safe rest areas affects drivers? What federal measures could help address this?

[Jeff Hall]

It's gotten worse since the hours-of-service laws changed a few years back. Drivers try to maximize everything. They don't do split sleeper berths, so if they don't plan their trips appropriately or if they get delayed due to accidents, traffic or weather, they end up stopping in places that don't have services.

I believe we have added two rest areas in northern Ontario. One is Batchawana Bay and one is right at the Manitoba border. I believe the one at Batchawana Bay has parking for six trucks. I can tell you that last week the road was closed at Batchawana Bay for 39 hours. Six trucks can park there. Six trucks can go to the washroom there. The others—I'm going to guess 1,000—can't. It's huge.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

My next question is for Mr. Ludwig. Thank you for coming today.

You have operated a family-run trucking company in Simcoe for decades, moving freight through local roads, border routes and regional supply chains that communities in southwestern Ontario rely on every day.

In your testimony, you underlined that Driver Inc. isn't just a labour issue but also a safety governance failure. From what you see on the ground in and around Simcoe, what risk does this enforcement gap pose to public safety, accountability and standards such as hours of service and vehicle maintenance? Do you believe the federal government has treated those risks with the same seriousness that it applies to other transportation safety issues?

[Michael Ludwig]

The short answer is no.

In our area, we don't see a lot of that problem, but we travel to areas in which we do see that as being an issue. Drivers who aren't trained properly or are skirting the law are simply not safe. They don't worry about what their equipment is like. They go around scales. They go to places where they can't get caught.

One of our big lanes is between the Fort Erie border and CP Rail in Vaughan. Lots of times my guys are running up and down the QEW, doing their thing and doing what they're supposed to do; we'll see guys travelling all the way out as far as Brantford to bypass scales, get around them, go up Highway 6 and cut back into Toronto the back way because the equipment is simply not safe.

I'm sorry; what was the rest of your question?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I can go on to....

Insurance costs are going up. I'm wondering if you think insurance costs are increasing from the crime or from the drivers or businesses that are not properly insured.

[Michael Ludwig]

My insurance costs are not going up, but that's because I run a very safe company.

Insurance costs in general are probably going up. That's because of a lack of safe drivers and more exposure to lawsuits within the marketplace. It's only a matter of time before somebody gets one that's $1 billion. It's already happened in Florida. It's only a matter of time before it comes here.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I'd like to go back to Mr. Hall.

We're hearing more and more about mental health being a real challenge across the country, and truckers are no exception. Long hours, isolation, stress and time away from family can take a real toll.

With most trucks now monitored through federally mandated electronic logging and with many drivers being paid by the mile, do you feel this federally regulated structure creates pressure on drivers or encourages unnecessary risk as they try to maximize their mileage within the allowable driving time?

[Jeff Hall]

The hours-of-service requirement that has been created now is fair to drivers, but the structure of it creates some pressure on drivers. I'll give you an example.

Let's say the next town where I can stop in northern Ontario is Thunder Bay, and right now I'm in Marathon. It's a three-hour drive, and an hour into the drive there's an accident that shuts the road down—the two-lane road, I will add—for two hours. There is nowhere else for drivers to stop.

The hours-of-service rule contributes to mental health on the one side, but the structure also helps create pressure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Cody, and thank you very much, Mr. Hall.

Next we'll go to Mr. Greaves.

Mr. Greaves, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to start with Mr. Hall.

Thank you for your testimony, sir. I have driven those highways in northern Ontario, although not in a big truck. I have some first-hand understanding of the challenges you described.

You mentioned that your business operates west from Ontario all the way to B.C., so your drivers will have experience with the different kinds of enforcement and inspections in the western provinces and in Ontario itself.

Could you speak to differences your business and your drivers have experienced in enforcement in the different provinces? Are there some that are clearly more efficient, more proactive, safer?

[Jeff Hall]

I would say that the roads contribute to safety a little more in western Canada, but from the point of view of safety and enforcement, nine times out of 10, I can drive from southwestern Ontario to the Ontario-Manitoba border before I cross a scale that's open. There is a scale at the Manitoba border at West Hawk that hardly ever closes. I can then go from there to Golden, British Columbia, and nine out of 10 of those scales will not be open. Golden, British Columbia, is another one that is often open, but it's not uncommon to drive from Ontario to the west coast and not cross more than one or two scales that are open.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

One specific thing that you shared during your opening statement is that six out of 10 applicants for work at your company are essentially looking to be employed as independent contractors under the Driver Inc. model. That's an interesting observation. It's a little different from what we've heard at this committee from other witnesses, who've spoken more about unscrupulous companies employing drivers under the Driver Inc. model as a way of avoiding payroll taxes.

Could you elaborate on that, please? What's happening with these individuals who want to be employed in this way?

[Jeff Hall]

I think there's been a bit of noise made, and that's created a bit of a stir. I referred to the brand-B carriers. Some of them are reaching out.

I'm going to say that half the drivers who apply at our place only phone in. They ask that question initially. As soon as they get the answer, it's a click and a dial tone; they're gone.

We have some walk-ins. As I mentioned, we're in rural Ontario, so we're not really popular for people walking in without a plan in mind. However, six out of 10 is what my safety department gave me as today's numbers. It's kind of scary.

We've never dabbled in that part of the industry. We are attracting so many only because of the noise that ESDC and others—WSIB—are making around the industry.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Would it be fair to say that perhaps it's more recently, as more public attention is being paid to the Driver Inc. model, that you're seeing applicants responding to that attention and seeking to be employed in that way?