Our pundit turns a sharp eye to the trucking industry overall; what was and what might be.
By Jeremy Woolward
Happy New Year to everyone.
I hope this past holiday was both good and invigorating for everyone reading this. I also hope that the coming year will be rewarding and fulfilling. I know that 2025 was a year full of ups and downs for everyone involved in trucking, and while I know that we would all hope that after this roller coaster of a year as it pertains to tariffs, policy shifts, and economics, we long for a bit of stability. I’d suggest that we’re probably not quite finished with them yet. In fact, they’re likely to persist. While nothing said here would be an Armageddon- level catastrophe, it would be hubris to think one could just bury their head in the sand and hope the disruptions pass them by. They won’t. Nonetheless, how one responds and reacts will help determine how well they’ll weather what might come to pass.
The first area of disruption that I’m expecting to see continue certainly involves our neighbour to the south. The United States continues to be a big question mark for almost anything these days. Often we ask “What will President Trump do next?” The first part of 2025 involved the rhetoric of Canada being the cause of America’s woes, and while this narrative persists and the talk of becoming the 51st State certainly endures in some parts of the continent, the bigger disruption will be what becomes of CUSMA, Trump’s own trade deal that replaced NAFTA. As reported by the CBC on December 5th, there’s different trains of thought that suggest that the White House might keep the plan, kill it altogether, or renegotiate it, but each of those thoughts all end with a common theme: whatever is done, it will be done to strengthen the hands of the United States, especially given 2026 being a midterm year and other political influences continue to distract and attempt to derail Donald Trump’s legislative agenda. The CBC article also suggests that Canada best be ready to deal with the threat of reduced sovereignty to maintain economic relations with the United States or be ready to deal with separate trade agreements the Americans make with and Canada. (U.S. businesses love CUSMA. Why is Donald Trump threatening to pull out? | CBC News)
While Canada has been working to expand and diversify its trade relations with other parts of the world, this is a risk to trucking because as much as trade deals and economic diversity with the European Union sound more idealistic, there’s the Atlantic Ocean to contend with and no direct access to those markets via anything but planes or ships. Losing a viable partner in the United States in trucking would be a significant and volatile disruption that the Canadian economy is likely not yet ready to weather. Moves have been made to reduce trade barriers between provincial jurisdictions, but until we have true free trade between provinces, we all need a common partner to work with. That partner, for better or for worse, is our friends south of the 49th Parallel. Expect to watch this situation unfold over the coming months. July 1st, 2026 is the deadline to renew CUSMA, and all signatories have six months to announce their intention to withdraw or to renew. I’d expect to see a lot of bravado in January, but February 1st will be the day to watch and see what transpires next.
Related to the first area of disruption, another involves climate policies, fuel emissions, and emerging technologies. One of the first things Trump did upon being sworn into office earlier this year was withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords, and instead pivoted to further develop the their dependence on fossil fuels, all under the guise of being able to sustain their own energy production, ending reliance on foreign sources. One of his infamous quotes, “Drill, Baby, Drill”, has led to further growth in oil and gas, and this has a more significant impact on the types of systems being built into trucks nowadays, with engine OEMs doing what they can to comply with the standards of the day, and avoiding the problems of doing something contrary to the whims of the current administration. However, this does present a problem for Canada where these same OEMs are manufacturing trucks for Canada, but our approach to climate change has been different to that of our neighbours to the South. Our biggest disruption came in 2015 with both the election of the Alberta New Democrats (NDP) and the 2015 election of Justin Trudeau.
One of the major promises made by the Alberta NDP was the establishment of a climate leadership plan, which addressed the issue of climate change, and proposed means to reduce it, including the possibility of adopting a carbon levy that targeted both large- and- smaller emitters and the population at large, but with the population also receiving a rebate. This levy became known as the infamous “carbon tax” that spawned political debate and vitriol that persists to this day. Under the Alberta CLP, revenues generated by the levy would be reinvested into alternative energy, ultimately ending Alberta’s reliance on fossil fuels. The goal was a 30% influx of renewable energy in the market by 2030. The funds from the levy would also be used to educate and transition workers out of fossil fuel industries into suitable roles in the renewable energy market. This leadership plan was also the foundation of the federal government’s climate change policy, as well as the justification the Trudeau government used to support the expansion of the TransMountain Pipeline in British Columbia. However, with the election of the United Conservatives in 2019, the Alberta CLP soon fell apart, and while the Trudeau government held onto their version of it and the levy, which became a carbon tax with little to show for it, the federal climate policy recently experienced its own death knell of sorts when Prime Minister Mark Carney declared it “too regulatory” with minimal results.
In another transition away from the Trudeau era climate plan, Alberta recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Ottawa, committing to a pipeline to the northern B.C. Coast, allowing product extracted from the Alberta oilsands to reach ports in Northern B.C. and then travel to markets in Asia and elsewhere. While this MOU requires Alberta to do more work in consultation with Indigenous populations and perform environmental assessments, it’s already been met with opposition from Indigenous nations along the route, and the resignation of Steven Gilebeault, who was Environment Minister under Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney. Gilebeault resigned in protest, voicing his opposition to the MOU and an about face to policies he helped shape in the later years of the Trudeau government. Elsewhere, the Carney government has more- or- less reverted their position in support of the AB carbon capture and storage plan of 2007 that also targeted large emitters of CO2, essentially undoing the last decade of environmental policies.
The preamble aside, what does this have to do with trucking? Going back to the engine OEMs, they’re left wondering how best to bring their products to market. Do they invest in combustion engines, or do they move towards alternative fuel sources like electric or hydrogen? What will provide the greatest return on investments and what will make their products accessible to the public? There’s been much conversation in this area about what the next evolution in engine and fuel types, and while electric power is still present, there are signs that it is not sustainable in northern climates, despite statements to the contrary. When EV charging stations are being removed from markets because there’s no confidence in their longevity, the focus then shifts towards clean fuels like hydrogen and others, but the drawback is price. Like any new technology at the forefront of its life, it’s expensive. A hydrogen- powered vehicle today would be like someone owning or even renting a VCR in the late 80s when their old Betamax was reliable andl in service.
Add to the fact that, at least in the U.S., the position of the White House has been to remove incentives or credits from companies producing alternative energies or delivery mechanisms for alternative energies. Manufacturers are going to be looking at what works as opposed to what’s effective. Regardless of which government is in power, the fact remains that fossil fuels are non-renewable resources and eventually, this transition is going to need a jolt in the arm, but will it be a jolt that one’s expecting, or one that’s required out of necessity? The opportunity is for industry to decide which route they want to take and then lobby government to enact policy to support what they want to do. Industry is the workhorse and instead of the cart leading the horse, this horse needs to lead the cart in North America, and ideally, sooner rather than later.
Look out for Driver Inc.
Another area of disruption impacting trucking will be the question of what industry looks like moving forward. One of the highlights of the 2025 Fall federal budget is a big investment into shutting down the cancer that is “Driver Inc”, or also known as an intentional and knowing misclassification of drivers by predator motor carriers who, desiring to lessen their tax obligations, shift the costs of remittances, taxes, and the like onto workers hired as contractors, but for all intents and purposes, are workers. While the federal government’s language on Driver Inc remains focused solely on the Reporting Fees for Services (RFS) as indicated in their press release CRA strengthens compliance in trucking sector by lifting the moratorium on T4A penalties – Canada.ca, the reality is that Driver Inc has become more pervasive and moved beyond just revenue.
Driver Inc targets immigrants or lower-income Canadians looking to make a living for themselves. Predator carriers or contractors, knowing how the system works and the loopholes that exist, advertise to prospective victims the opportunity to work as owner-operators without the need to buy their own vehicle, earn a good income, but fail to mention that they will be responsible for submitting their own remittances, filing their own CPP, EI, and other relevant deductions. The big red flag, not owning their own truck and instead driving a vehicle provided by the predator carrier, also requires the operator to cover the costs of the repair, maintenance, and compliance requirements.
The predator carrier gets to rake in the revenues but ignores their responsibility to report. Then, when something goes awry, the predator carrier absconds their accountability when they can say they’ve hired these drivers as “contractors”, and then officials go after the drivers when the accountability ought to remain with the predator carrier.
From a safety and compliance standpoint, ending Driver Inc is a good thing and long overdue. Bad players get shut down and removed from the roads while those unsuspecting victims of the scam get a chance then to work as a true contractor, knowing all that they are required to do, or at the very least, can find a motor carrier that understands and values their responsibilities on the road. Because motor carriers in Canada are required under provincial legislation and the 16 standards of the National Safety Code to adopt a safety culture that includes a compliance program, a training program, maintenance requirements as well as monitoring of driver hours of service, those who do their job effectively and efficiently will be able to benefit from this and be able to show customers the true cost of doing business.
Removing Driver Inc players removes those who have long undercut the industry by lowering the true cost of operating and forcing responsible players to lower their margins just to stay competitive. Remaining compliant does come with a cost and when good players attempt to raise rates to stay competitive and keep their margins going, they’re met with hesitation, resentment, and unsuspecting customers finding the cheapest player hoping they’ll be able to deliver the same thing and being told they will by carriers who are lying through their teeth.
However, like everything, even the federal government’s attempt to squash the efforts of Driver Inc have been met with opposition from industry players, predominantly from the Canada Truck Operators Association (CTOA). The CTOA supports the Driver Inc model and has employed a lawyer to defend their model and challenge the legal issues arising from Driver Inc debates. More can be read about why the CTOA does not support the federal government’s decision here (CTOA lawyer defends Driver Inc. model – Truck News) but one can rest assured that this debate is not going anywhere, and is only made more complicated when the head of the CTOA also has close ties to the Carney Government, raising more questions than answers.( A Mark Carney Ally Moves To Shield “Driver Inc.” Operators As Ottawa Faces Growing Pressure)
The other issue that becomes indirectly tied with Driver Inc is again related to issues south of the border and the proposed legislation in Texas that would potentially remove up to 130 000 non-domiciled commercial driver licenses from American highways, causing a significant disruption to cross-border freight delivery. This push, another part of the “American First” attitude adopted since re-electing Trump, is designed to remove bad players from American highways, which, given some of the incidents seen on the road as of late, would make sense. Some incidents include the horrendous crash in Florida where an operator of a commercial vehicle performed an illegal U-Turn which resulted in the deaths of three people. The incident also raised red flags about how States were properly enforcing the laws, with the hardest hit being California, a state frequently targeted by Republicans as being one of the most fervent opponents to the White House. (Stockton truck driver pleads not guilty to deadly Florida crash)
The takeaway is that if this is happening in the U.S. the question is whether the United States could ban Canadian drivers who fail to meet the benchmark for safety on American highways. The short answer is that they can, and with enough motivation, would. Add that traditionally, Driver Inc operators are not the most carefully vetted or scrutinized operators on the road, this leads to unethical and predatory carriers potentially shutting our compliant drivers out of work in the U.S. and this would essentially cripple our economy and benefit only the Americans. While the debate rages on about Driver Inc here, the reality is that the stakes are more than just driver misclassification. It could become a death knell to our industry where only the strongest survive.
This is not a definitive “this will happen,” but rather, a projection of what could be. It’s a take based on available evidence and trends, coupled with a bit of lived experience. The only takeaway I can leave readers with is that the time to prepare for what could come is now. Become informed, become active in the discussions, and ultimately, decide what it is you want for trucking in 2026, and then go out and make it happen as best you can. Like Scrooge being visited by Christmas Future, our future is not yet written in stone, and I hope to be terribly wrong with all these possibilities except the one where industry, not government, leads the way. I don’t want to see more disruption, and I sure as heck do not want to see our industry cut off at the knee. I work in this industry, and I value what it does for my family and I.
But I’m also keenly aware that if we do not do what we can to protect it, it can be taken away quickly and easily. Let’s not allow that to happen. Let’s fight for it with integrity, resilience, and adaptability. Aim high in all that you do, and I am confident we will prevail.