 | ||
 | | |
Our regulators have a lot to learn
To the editor,
I am writing a series of articles on serious taxi industry issues with some responsible points of resolve that I believe should be discussed at the upcoming major stakeholders’ meetings. In the past few days I have had some inquiries as to why I am taking this approach. My purpose in writing these articles is not to portray that I have all the answers to our industry’s problems because no one can make that claim. It was done with the intention of stimulating intelligent discussions at all of the upcoming meetings so we can reach a general consensus on each point that will be as beneficial to all concerned as possible.
In many of my previous submissions, I have asked all councillors and bureaucrats at city hall to take the time to look into the history of our industry so they can make an educated vote at council instead of the usual rubber stamping of the L&S Committee recommendations on what should be done to rectify our situation. I have asked this for two simple reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of councillors and bureaucrats were not around
city hall when the last major stakeholders’ meetings were held in 1998 so they have no idea what came from those meetings or the resulting by-laws that ended in a disaster for our industry.
Secondly, they would have no idea that, for the most part, the same industry people who supported and promoted those disastrous changes in 1998 are now back at city hall again calling on everyone to support their patently self-interested agenda. In 1998 City hall made the industry changes on the recommendations of this handful of industry members against the advice and informed input of the rest of the industry. The result, as we have all seen, was catastrophe.
If city hall members come to these meetings with any preconceived notions to once again follow the recommendations of this single self-interested group of stakeholders, they will only compound the travesty of the City’s 1998 reforms. History should have taught our city hall leaders a few lessons. What these people wanted in 1998 was unjustified and wrong and what they want today is just as wrong and self-serving without any regard for the future health of the Toronto taxi industry and the consumers we serve.
Letter #1 Ambassador Taxi Program
September 11, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
City hall politicians and bureaucrats have been heavily lobbied by industry members and paid professional lobbyists each bringing forward their own personal agendas to solve the Ambassador taxi program issues. Knowing city hall has been recently inundated with letters, reports and meetings on the Ambassador taxi issue, I would like to bring forward a little different spin on this particular problem. Without exception, every member of the taxi industry in the City of Toronto believes we have too many taxis on our streets.
So my question to the Ambassador operators is how does the conversion of your licenses to standard licenses deal with the issue of too many taxis never mind the addition of up to 1,400 new drivers into an industry that cannot support their present membership? If the City takes this avenue, in short order the vast majority will sell the standard licenses as to retain a second driver or lease their license will not be viable. A taxi driver will not be able to earn a living, as there are only so many slices in the pie.
There have been discussions that if this conversion does occur, it might be advisable to issue them over a 3 to 4 year period. But does it really matter when they would be converted when in the end, there will not be the business to support them and earning a living for the additional drivers will be unattainable? Taxi licenses are supposed to be issued when a need is shown, not just as a licensing revenue stream for the City of Toronto. This would end up a stopgap measure causing irreparable harm to the City’s taxi industry.
Common sense dictates that we first need to know how many taxi licenses are required in today’s market before we take any steps in correcting the Ambassador taxi program. This can only be achieved through an independent and impartial economic impact study. Considering the population of the City of Toronto proper has not appreciably increased in over a decade, I am sure this study would reflect little or no need for a licensing issue. Presently our per capita formula is 1 taxi per 536 citizens but if all outside influences were taken into account it is actually closer to 1 per 268 citizens, which is 3 to 4 times lower than any other jurisdiction I am aware of.
My position on what to do about the Ambassador program has not been a popular one with the Ambassador operators. During July and August of 2011, I was approached or I approached, 87 different Ambassador operators about their plight and some of those conversations, shall we say, became rather spirited. The first thing I enquired about was what would they do if issued a standard license. 85 of the 87 unequivocally said they would sell it at the very first opportunity, which solidified my thoughts that they really have no interest in the overall health of our industry but are only looking for a quick cash grab.
We discussed why they thought they had an entitlement to a standard plate and when I brought forward information to the contrary, they were less than interested feeling their position was right and the only one to consider. Many Ambassador operators believe, for example, the standard license holders, some drivers on the waiting list and “W” license operators have no right to a city standard license issuance. They fail to realize that many of these industry members have been 3 or 4 decades in this industry, far more years than the vast majority of ambassador operators and have made it their life’s work. So why shouldn’t they be entitled to receive a city issued standard license?
One of their primary complaints was that they cannot have a second driver thus making it impossible to survive in case of illness or if injured on the job. I pointed out that there was available insurance for illness that would cover them if unable to work and if injured on the job, that WSIB coverage is available to the individual at a cost, the last time I checked, of $2.04 per $100.00 of gross earnings.
I was astonished to hear that not one of the 87 drivers I talked to had even looked into insurance coverage for workplace illness or knew that WSIB coverage is available to them. What came across to me is that the ambassador drivers felt that the city should take the required steps to protect them without realizing they are not city employees but independent contractors therefore any responsibility in this area falls on their shoulders, not the city’s. Again, a lack of knowledge and education and only fixated on what they believe they are entitled to without even opening up the possibilities that they may not have any entitlement.
Although I have written articles in the taxi news on WSIB coverage and talked to industry members and city hall members as well, no one has stepped up to the plate to assist me on attaining WSIB coverage at a more affordable rate or in helping me deal with the Ministry of Labour for over all provincial involvement in taxi driver workplace safety and coverage. Bill 168 Section 71, Occupational Health and Safety Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace) 2009 deals with taxi drivers and came into being as a result of over 2 decades of my involvement with this Ministry.
All it needs is an order by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to enact the legislation in Section 71 and all Ontario taxi drivers will be protected in their workplace and many doors in the Ministry of Labour will be open to us including negotiating a more reasonable WSIB premium for workplace health coverage. Where have the Ambassador drivers and their paid lobbyist attained through a Toronto taxi brokerage been in regards to assisting me with this Ministry seeing as they state it is one of the most pressing issues they have?
If you take a look back to 1998, city hall staff at the request of the L&S Committee did a report on the idea of implementing the Ambassador taxi program and it was staff’s opinion that it should not be enacted. The program only came about from pressures put on staff from Councillors Moscoe and Minnan-Wong to change their report to show the program was needed. The staff’s initial assessment in 1998 was correct and would stand today so for them to complete their reports in 2011, it should reflect the same conclusions they initially came to in 1998, because nothing has changed from then to present as far as any need for additional taxi licenses to be issued in the City of Toronto.
Knowing these facts, it is obvious that the Ambassador operators do not have an entitlement to a standard license as their program was initiated under false pretenses without any need of licensing issuance being showed. This is why Councillors Moscoe and Minnan-Wong refused to do the economic impact study I requested in 1998, as it would have supported the initial staff report thus making it impossible for these two councillors to enact their sinister plan, which was to mass issue taxi licenses in the hope to de-value the open market value of the standard licenses making it viable for the City to buy them back and take over the industry at bargain basement prices.
There is only one responsible way to deal with this issue and that is to grandfather out the Ambassador taxi program. Taking this course of action ensures that the Ambassador operator has not lost anything as his/her capital investment, which includes the costs of the car and equipment, would be totally retrievable. The industry would then return to having a proper number of taxis that truly reflects the public need and ensures taxi drivers can earn a reasonable living to support themselves and their families.
Staff does not report back to committee until the second quarter of 2012 with their final recommendations then summer is upon us and it then has to go to the Province for approval, which takes us into the fall of 2012. Then a 90-day implementation period usually occurs and that will take us into 2013. Although the Ambassador operators may not agree, this is rather timely on at least one point. The Pan Am games are set for 2013 in the City of Toronto so I would recommend that the grand-fathering process begin post Pan Am games. This will not only give the City the taxis they need to service the games but a substantial period of time for the Ambassador operators to make an informed and educated decision as whether to stay in the industry or look for opportunities in other areas.
When the City shows a need in the future for further licensing issuance then a standard license would be issued. To ensure fairness to our membership whether they are a taxi driver, Ambassador operator, w license operator or standard plate owner/operator who was on their list prior to 1986 when it was frozen, all should be placed on one list and listed by seniority for license issuance. This idea was brought forward during the reformation meetings in 1998 as it was pointed out that all of the then existing lists needed to be exhausted prior to any new plan being put into place as a matter of correct protocol and fairness but that idea was rejected by city hall members.
If the City wishes to change the Ambassador license to a standard license and it parallels in any way the present standard taxi license or call them any new name the City wishes, you are handing the individual Ambassador operators a chattel worth in the vicinity of $300,000.00. This would be passed by City Council and enacted under the Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 545 - Municipal Licensing and Standards thus making them issued as a matter of law. Therefore as a matter of law, those licenses are mandated to be issued to all industry members in a fair and equitable manner not just the present licensed Ambassador operators. To do anything else would violate senior statute.
I make this claim under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Being Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states Equality Rights – Equality Before and Under the Law and equal protection and benefit of Law / Affirmative Action Program. Section 15 (1) states
“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has a right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”
It is my opinion and the opinion of others that I have sought out that the City of Toronto violated Ontario Provincial Bill 26, Savings and Restructuring Act 1996. For the City to bring forward the ambassador program they would have had to apply to the Province under this Act. I believe the City violated at least two sections of this Act in regards to this program. As you will see, it is not necessary, at least initially, to seek legal counsel, as there are avenues open to our membership through the Province of Ontario to challenge changes made by the City if they are not fair and necessary to our entire membership.
The purpose of this Bill was to achieve fiscal savings and promote economic prosperity through public sector restructuring, streamlining and efficiency and to implement other aspects of the government’s agenda. The City of Toronto has violated almost every word here other than to implement other aspects of the government’s agenda, which to our members meant more and increased licensing fees.
Schedule “M” Part 1 Municipal Act of this Act under section 2) municipalities will be required to provide the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with information which, in the opinion of the Minister, relate to the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations of the municipality. I would really like to hear what city hall members told the Minister in regards to the Ambassador taxi program on how it would relate to the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations of the municipality when it was obvious even to the novice that this program was totally unnecessary and had to lead to the exact opposite thus eventually ending up in a disastrous conclusion somewhere down the road.
It has been obvious in previous major stakeholders meetings involving serious industry issues that city hall members have come to the table with a pre-conceived plan in mind and that the input of our members on these issues fell on deaf ears. Previous members of the Licensing & Standards Committee are the ones that are totally responsible for this present disaster that we are in and it will be quite interesting to see if City Hall comes to the table on this occasion and actually listens to what we have to say.
To not seriously consider mine and all industry members’ recommendations may lead the City into numerous lawsuits, as there are senior statutes in law that support much of what I report here. The industry is no longer totally divided and our membership if finally gaining the education they require to take their issues to higher levels if the City does not take their input seriously.
There will never be a final conclusion to any of our issues that will be totally acceptable to the entire taxi industry membership but if the City finalizes their recommendations to reflect responsible consumer service while addressing a sensible plan that ensures our members have the opportunity to earn a living to support their families, that is all that can be expected.
Letter #2 Credit & Debit Machines
September 12, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
We need to review all the credit card issues facing our membership and understand the processes involved. Control of this industry and the machines they operate come under the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Financial Consumers Agency of Canada HYPERLINK "http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca" www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca As of 12 July 2010, royal assent was granted for the enactment of the Payment Card Networks Act, which is governed by the Consumers Agency and it is this new Act that sets the rules and regulations for the credit card providers and their networks.
These federal statutes preclude any city by-laws that City of Toronto politicians and bureaucrats may pass in regards to credit card usage in Toronto taxis and limousines. Any bylaw enacted on credit card usage in city-licensed vehicles would be redundant as senior statute is already in place.
If you research the Acts, there is no stipulation on whether or how much the consumer is to be charged as far as service or access fees are concerned but it does state how the consumer must be notified of the rates and any upcoming increase. It also must be pointed out that the machine operators do not charge a service fee as that terminology is saved for the banking institutions but they do charge a systems access fee or surcharge, which amounts to the same thing.
When the consumer requests credit and is handed the machine, it clearly states the fee type, usually surcharge or access fee and the amount. At that time, the customer has the option to pay the fee or turn down the credit request and pay cash. A check of fees charged by other financial institutions that offer similar services shows that the providers in our industry are in line with those charges.
I have estimated that approximately 75% of all Toronto taxis and limousines have already installed the machines and offer the service. It is well overdue that the City mandates that all taxis and limousines must provide credit card availability to their clientele. We are in a service business and we should supply all the amenities our clients need when requesting our services. The City of Ottawa mandated that all their taxis have the machines in 2007, which was part of their safety initiative. Their only error was to set the systems access fee, which they have no jurisdiction to do.
In many cases when the customer calls a brokerage, they request a taxi or limo that provides credit. In most cases the trip goes smoothly but there are cases where the driver accepts the run and may or may not have the machine and forces the consumer to stop at a bank or ATM machine to get the cash to pay for the trip. This angers the customer for more than one reason. They may not have the time to stop; might catalogue their expenditures in this way; specifically asked for the credit etc. By mandating the credit card machines, there will be no excuses for stopping unless the verifying system for the credit card was down. If that was the case when they ordered the taxi or limo, they could be notified of the need to stop under those circumstances.
In the past 5 years I have seen my credit card usage jump from about 5% of my runs to over 30% and it is rising every year. It is conceivable that the vast majority of our runs within the next decade will require credit so we need to address that future now and be ready for the inevitable. Our brokerages and independents work in many different ways. A few still manually check some of the cards but by April 2011 Visa and Master Card, the major cards used in our vehicles, will no longer accept the manually swiped cards. By that time most of the credit cards will have the new chip technology that includes a PIN number so the machines will then be a must.
Another important reason to mandate the machines is for the safety of the driver. These machines will reduce the need for the drivers to have to carry as much cash thus making them a less desirable target for robberies that in the past has led to some serious assaults. I would like the City to consider putting some notification on the exterior or interior of the taxi that states the driver has only minimal cash on hand but does accept credit or debit as a form of payment and a systems access fee will be required.
It is my contention and supported by federal statutes that the City of Toronto’s has no legal authority to set the rules of governance for the use of or fees applied by credit card suppliers in taxis or limousines. They do have the right to mandate the credit and debit machines be installed in every City taxi and limousine and when the vehicles come for their semi-annual inspection make sure they are operable. This is where the City should meet their obligations not only to the taxi and limo using public but to the safety of our drivers as well.
It would assist the industry if the City contacted the machine providers to make sure that our members are provided with the latest machines and technology and that if the machines need repair, that the machine operators provide a replacement machine while the primary machine is in for repairs. At present, some of the machine providers are negligent in providing needed repairs on their machines in a timely fashion and do not provide a temporary replacement machine while repairs are being made. Their tardiness causes an inconvenience to our clientele and a loss of income for our members.
12 September 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
This submission is in reference to item LS7.1 that was addressed by you and your committee on September 9, 2011. This item is titled “ Taxi Industry Review Plan.”
The review of the Toronto Taxi Reform is long overdue and has been requested by the taxi industry for the last five years. The submission by the staff in regards to the process and goals is comprehensive and will, when accomplished establish new rules and guidelines for the taxi industry, which will last for many years to come.
At the end of the numerical agenda items is a list of stakeholders the City plans to consult with and again is fairly all encompassing with a few exceptions. For a review to be open, transparent and all encompassing, major stakeholders in all areas should be consulted. It has come to the industry’s attention that at least four distinctive groups from the taxi industry have not been listed either intentionally or by oversight.
These groups are the following:
Ambassador Operators: There are 1400 ambassador operators governed by rules and regulations different from those of regular taxi drivers or standard license holders.
Fleet Operators: Fleet operators operate an estimated 60% of all Toronto taxicabs. Their knowledge of leasing and driver management is invaluable.
“W” Taxi License Operators: These operators are licensed by the City of Toronto and must follow rules lad down by both the City and the TTC. They have in-depth knowledge of how to service physically challenged consumers.
Taxi License Agents Currently Operating in The City of Toronto: An estimated 60% of standard licenses are currently leased out and not operated by the registered owner. Most of these licenses fall under the control of agents. These people have in-depth knowledge of leasing and also the abuses in this area that are currently occurring.
It is believed that these groups should be particularly singled out by name for consultation as all members of these groups have unique knowledge, which will be beneficial for the City and our industry to utilize.
This review is large in scope and will without a doubt impact on the financial well being of the taxi industry members and to the service that will be provided to the general public. It is believed that by adding these additional four groups to the previously acknowledged stakeholders’ consultation list will provide a better well-rounded review.
We would like to bring to your attention that the City has invited associations that represent both drivers and owners. There are numerous groups in our industry that claim they represent factions of the industry but as a matter of fact, they do not. They have gotten industry members signatures of intent but they do not, for the most part represent members that are active in that association and the signatures were obtained with promises that cannot be fulfilled.
An example would be the itaxiworkers. They claim a membership of in excess of 800 members but if the City would check to see how many of the 800 are paid up members and actually attend their meetings, you would find it significantly less than what they claim. Another example is the Toronto Taxi Alliance, which claims to represent standard license owners yet haven’t had a meeting in over four years and collect no dues from the alleged membership.
To let all associations attend the upcoming taxi reformation meetings without giving acceptable proof of membership should not be allowed as it would be redundant and further slow an already packed agenda.
The review of the taxi industry should not be entered into in haste but rather in a well thought out and methodical manner. We strongly urge you to not put a deadline to this review but rather take the time to do a thorough job in the consulting process and really listen to all industry stakeholders’ points of view. Your help in implementing our recommendations would be greatly appreciated by the entire Toronto taxi industry.
At the end of the consultation process and before the final staff report is submitted, it is felt it would be beneficial if representatives from all the groups met to go over the staff recommendations and finalize the report. In holding this meeting, everyone would have true consultative participation and no pertinent points would be omitted. This would also remove the mystique that the City on purpose divides the industry membership and their collective input for the purpose of dividing and conquering.
It is believed by accepting our recommendations to the consultation process that the City, and the general taxi using public will have a better understanding of the complexities in the operation procedures in the Toronto taxi industry.
September 12, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
For decades our industry members have observed hotel doormen receive gratuities from specific livery and taxicab drivers to receive airport or high-end taxi and/or limousine runs. This has been known as receiving a “Cookie”, which I presume received this name for the lack of a better terminology.
It has been my contention that these doormen and their employers could have and should be charged under Toronto Municipal Code Licensing Ss 545-129, Exclusive Concession Agreements, A) agreement ” includes any agreement, whether or not for valuable consideration, which has for its purpose or effect the granting to any person of a right or license to provide taxicab service to any public transportation terminal, subway station, hotel, motel, taxicab stand, or to any other place to the exclusion of one or more other taxicabs. To charge the doormen and the owner of the hotel as a co-respondent, who is ultimately responsible for their employees’ actions, I am positive will bring this to a swift conclusion as hotel owners do not want negative press about their establishment.
I would like this section of the by-law to be amended and add livery and/or limousine even though in many areas they are deemed as one due to the fact they are a transportation service. To support the deemed as one scenario, I must point out that it is a position that the City of Toronto has taken for over 33 years when it comes to the GTAA taxis and limousines. The exclusion for the GTAA vehicles from paying municipal licensing fees only applies to taxicabs not limousines but the City has always taken the position they are one in the same even though the provincial legislation states otherwise so the City should apply their long-standing position here as well for the purpose of enforcing the exclusive concession by-law.
By calling a specific taxicab or limousine and receiving monies, the doormen are disregarding taxis sitting outside their front door as well as other city licensed carriers that are available in the area whether independent or company taxis and/or limousines, thus committing a flagrant violation of this section.
The driver of the taxi and/or limousine is of course charged under the same section and if found to be a licensed Toronto taxi and/or livery upon a subsequent charge and conviction should be made to appear before the tribunal to give cause why their license should not be suspended. If a GTAA operator is charged and convicted, the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing needs to be informed, as the driver has violated the Ontario Municipal Act, Toronto Act (2006) re Airport Exemption and his license should be revoked.
If it is not a licensed Toronto taxi and/or livery/limousine, they could be charged for picking up without a City license. Even though a GTAA taxi or limousine may have the right to pick up presently and go back to the airport only, they do not have the right to infract the exclusive concession agreement to do it and should be subject to the right of pick up as any other city licensed carrier, although we can prove these doormen are giving them numerous other orders that do not go back to the airport but are lucrative orders going all over Ontario.
I would like staff to also investigate how the City of Montreal is handling this issue. It has been reported that the doormen at their hotels if caught receiving ”Cookies” are being charged with a criminal charge under “Extortion” and our members believe the more serious the charge, conviction and fines imposed, the quicker the business will return to our membership, which are the proper and legally licensed transportation carriers in the City of Toronto.
September 13, 2011 Councillor Palacio
Chairman – L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Councillor Palacio,
I would like to bring to your attention unfair practices mandated in the current Toronto Municipal Code Licensing Chapter 545 that deals with taxi flat rate charging. Without exception, each section that deals with this issue mandates that the driver must at all times have the meter in the recording position and that, as I have been informed by staff is to protect the passenger from being over charged for the trip and to ensure the taxi driver is properly compensated for the service.
Section 545-129.1. Flat rates A. States “ A taxicab broker may enter into flat rate arrangements with charge account customers, provided that the taxi broker shall not pay any taxicab driver who services a flat rate any less or significantly more than the meter rate for that call.”
Section 545-150. (4.1) States “ Where a taxicab brokerage has entered into a flat rate arrangement in accordance with s.s. 545-129.1A of this chapter, the driver who services the call shall place and maintain in operation the taximeter in the taxicab that he or she is driving, and the rate of the fare to be charged to the customer for the trip shall be the flat rate.”
The City of Toronto through Appendix M to Chapter 545, Taxi Tariffs from the City of Toronto to Lester B Pearson International Airport has also entered the flat rate arena by mandating flat rates to be charged from the City to the Airport on request of the consumer and the meter here as well must be in the recording position. Where the issues arise is that the consumer is receiving the protection of this by-law but the driver in many cases is not.
Although the flat rates to the airport were enacted to protect the consumer from overcharges and to be competitive with the GTAA vehicles, this does contravene the City of Toronto Municipal Code Licensing Chapter 545. This chapter mandates that the rates charged by taxis are to be in accordance to the City approved meter rates. Meter rates include a combination of time and distance as set down by the City of Toronto and in many cases dealing with flat rates, the by-law is not being adhered to as the rates are set by mileage alone thus ending up well below the recorded meter rate.
For example, airport flat rates. These rates are set by mileage alone but meter rates as previously shown are supposed to be a combination of time and distance. During normal traffic times, mileage rates are fine but during times that I will outline below, mileage rates are far short of what the meter rates would and should be.
Rush hour periods. Being on the Gardiner Expressway or on Highway 401 on route to the airport.
During inclement weather.
Being caught in an accident situation.
Consumer informing you that there has to be one or more stops on route.
These are the main points to be brought to your attention and I am sure there are others as well. The purpose of this is to point out that these circumstances can make the meter rate to the airport, which we are supposed to be adhering to, at times 10% or more higher than the quoted flat airport rate as shown on the City of Toronto Appendix M Chapter 545. Also consider that GTAA vehicles can pick up fares at the airport where the City of Toronto taxis are prohibited unless pre-arranged and at a $13.00 per pick-up charge, so therefore the taxis must return to the City to obtain their next fare.
Brokerages also are guilty in many cases of the same thing. When they set their flat rates for their charges account customers they set it on the same premise as the City of Toronto airport rates and that is on mileage alone and I and many other of my fellow drivers have seen those rates well below meter rates sometimes as much as 20% or more depending on the circumstances of the trip and it is almost impossible to get the brokerage to alter the costs so the driver has to absorb the loss. This violates 545-129.1. A of the Licensing Code as the quoted rate is nowhere near the meter rate.
It is important to point out that brokerages often set flat rates for other than charge account customers and when they get into the taxi, they believe they have the right to the rate as quoted by the taxi company representative on the phone. When you point out that the company has no authority to do this unless the customer has a charge account, it usually ends up in a rather lively discussion that leads to ill feelings between the driver and his passenger.
The City of Toronto must put protections in the by-law for the taxi driver that have substance so the driver is compensated in a more reasonable fashion than what is presently being done in regards to flat rates. Seeing as industry issues are being reviewed this fall in reformation meetings, I suggest this be added as one of the items for discussion. With the present economic climate that we as taxi drivers face each and every shift, we can ill afford to take the losses that we are currently facing in regards to flat rate charges as mandated in Chapter 545 of the Toronto Municipal Code- Licensing.
Letter #6 Singular Dedicated Vehicle
September 13, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
In regards to Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong’s request for a staff report on emulating the New York City model on vehicle replacement, I would like you, Committee and staff to consider the following points.
Although the Province of Ontario is heading for the year of 2014 to have all taxis wheel chair accessible, they have yet to definitively make that the date for this program to begin, as there has been numerous problems brought to their attention in regards to this initiative.
I would tread very carefully in following anything that the City of New York recommends as they have had numerous problems arise from programs they have initiated in their taxi industry. Councillor Minnan-Wong, when a member of L&S brought forward and city council finally adopted that all taxis in Toronto must have a printing meter, which also came from a New York City program. Although our industry membership strongly objected for many legitimate reasons, it was passed at a cost of three million dollars to our taxi owners and operators and a few short years later this program was scrapped as it was found, as our members had previously suggested, to be foolhardy and unnecessary.
Councillor Minnan-Wong has led the Toronto taxi industry down the path of financial hardship on several occasions in the past. You presently have to deal with the Ambassador taxi program and I have already pointed out the meter program and there was also the natural gas initiative. These were some of the programs instituted solely or in part by this Councillor and they all ended up disasters that have cost our industry members millions of dollars. It is very questionable why he continues to interject on taxi industry issues especially considering he is no longer a member of this committee and his previous track record.
New York City has also had problems with their digital camera program as well as serious issues with required vehicles in their taxi industry. A couple of years ago, this city pushed through a program requiring their taxis to all eventually become hybrid vehicles. The industry members took the City to court and that proposal was struck down. Now the City has adopted the Nissan as their vehicle of choice and the industry is again taking the City to court and there is a strong possibility that they will win this case as well.
As a matter of interest, here are some of the points that are in dispute. The Nissan vehicle has yet to even begin production; there is no history as to its functionality in the taxi industry and a price has not yet been set as to its eventual cost to that city’s membership. There are concerns as to availability of parts as the vehicle will be made in Mexico and the industry’s members are stating that it does not meet all of their requirements.
New York City ran a competition for automotive manufacturers to produce a suitable vehicle for this program. There were other automotive companies that showed vehicles that have a history and positive track record in other markets, yet they were not chosen. Some of these corporations were even willing to build automotive factories in New York to build these cars but they still were disregarded. This raises many red flags as to why Nissan was picked over the other vehicle manufacturers that I am sure will be disclosed at trial.
It is apparent that our industry may have to come up with vehicles that are wheel chair accessible, as the Province may eventually mandate it but there will be many things to consider when making vehicle choices. It is a dangerous position to pick just one vehicle for numerous reasons such as parts availability; what if the company employees strike; removes competitive pricing; will it be made in Ontario; how long will our members be able to retain these vehicles; has never been the position of the City of Toronto to have a singular supplier in any product or service and the list goes on and on.
This process will be a lengthy one and must include all major stakeholders such as industry members, politicians and members of the public. I and other industry members would like to see included, members of the physical and sight impaired communities to be involved in the vehicle choice process as this program is geared to address their needs and therefore it is important to obtain their feedback.
Whatever vehicles are chosen at the end of our meetings, they must not only meet the requirements of the physically and sight impaired communities but the prerequisites and expectations of the rest of our consumers whether they be from the grocery shopper or the business executive.
Considering the New York taxi industry is taking the New York Transportation Authority to court over the Nissan choice, I believe it would not look good on the City of Toronto to be even remotely associated with this case thus I am requesting that Councillor Minnan-Wong’s request for a staff report be disregarded at this time. At the appropriate time, Nissan will have the opportunity to make its pitch to our membership and I have all the confidence that the City of Toronto and its major stakeholders will make the right choices for vehicles in our taxi industry without the need for input from the City of New York.
Letter #7 Handheld Devices & Illegal Ticketing
September 14, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
With the introduction of the electronic age, communication for the taxi driver has been greatly enhanced. No longer are there call boxes, which I am old enough to remember and use and two-way radios are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Now the modern taxi driver receives his pick-up information from a mobile data terminal display screen; blackberries; mobile phones and pagers to name a few.
But seeing as the taxi driver might be driving while receiving this data, it has brought about some issues in that area and the Province of Ontario has found it necessary to enact legislation to control this new technology. Many taxi drivers have approached me and it is obvious they do not truly understand the new rules so I thought an explanation was in order.
The legislation that regulates these new electronic devices is in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, Ontario Regulation 366/09 with two distinct categories, Display Screens and Hand-Held Devices.
Display Screens exemption for certain commercial activities section 6 (2) the following persons, while engaged in the performance of their duties, may drive a motor vehicle on a highway with a mobile data terminal display screen in the motor vehicle visible to the driver and ss (3) of 6 (2) exempts drivers of taxicabs and limousines licensed by a municipality or airport authority to provide passenger service
Display Screens Section 8 states the exemption in section 6 applies only if the display screen of the computer, mobile data terminal or other device is placed securely in or mounted to the motor vehicle so that it does not move while the vehicle is in motion. This section clearly shows that all of our electronic devices are not allowed to be hand held for reading or listening purposes.
Hand-Held Devices exemption for certain commercial activities section 12 (2) Until January 1, 2013, the following persons, while engaged in the performance of their duties, may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a two-way radio and ss (3) of 12 (2) exempts drivers of taxicabs and limousines licensed by a municipality or airport authority to provide passenger service. Section 12 (4) states this section is revoked on January 1, 2013.
Perhaps it would be prudent for the City of Toronto to immediately enter discussions with the Province to extend the two-way radio exemption considering some brokerages will still be involved in two-way radio dispatching long after January 1, 2013 thus their drivers will still need to hand-hold their microphones.
Exemption for pressing buttons Section 14 (1) & (2) gives the exemption for hand-held wireless communication devices (Cell Phones) by allowing the driver to press a button on the device to make, answer or end a cell phone call. In plain terminology, a hands free application to your cell phone is required.
Of course with this new legislation, police officers have entered into a frenzy of ticket issuing in regards to hand-held devices. They are obviously un-educated to the fact that two-way radio use is exempted for taxi drivers; too wrapped up in ticket quota issuing procedures or don’t care. Personally I believe it is a combination of all three but where does this all end? Why should our members have to continually spend up to two hours to get a court date then several weeks later attend court and lose an additional half day’s wages in answer to a charge that had no legal foundation in the first place and should never have been laid?
When our members or any other citizen are charged with an offence such as this, there needs to be a procedure put in place for all police departments in Ontario that would allow the charged person the right to go to the nearest police station and have the ticket withdrawn without hearing the usual response we get from station duty police officers, “Go to Court.” When are police officers that lay these illegal charges going to be held accountable? Perhaps being charged under the Police Act for discreditable conduct is in order and a loss of pay or days off just might make them more assiduous when conducting their duties.
The City of Toronto needs to step up to the plate on this issue. It has been going on for years and has cost our members tens of thousands of dollars as crown attorneys are bringing forward these illegal charges and convictions by a justice of the peace or a magistrate are being registered and fines levied. Is there no one in our police service or judicial system that ever takes the time to ensure charges have been laid on legal grounds, not just what the police officer brings forward? Obviously not.
In the early and mid 60’s, I was a Royal Canadian Air Force military police officer and regardless of what base I served at, we routinely held meetings with the local, provincial/state and federal police officers plus members of the judicial system attended as well. It was found to be extremely helpful to table concerns from all participants so problems like the one I just outlined would not occur. It is well overdue that a process as this or something similar needs to be put in place.
September 17, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
The “Airport Exemption” is one of the few issues that all Toronto transportation members agree has been unfair since it was adopted by the Province over 33 years ago yet nothing has been done from the City’s perspective to change it.
City Council and staff members have always hid behind the fact that the “Airport Exemption” is a Provincial Statute therefore nothing could be done. Our point of view is that the City of Toronto has never in an official or serious manner even attempted to open talks with the Province to find common ground to reverse this totally unnecessary legislation. As it stands now, GTAA taxis and limousines can pick-up in any surrounding jurisdiction to Pearson Airport without paying municipal licensing fees while all of these surrounding jurisdictions’ drivers must pay a $13 pre-arranged pick-up fee if they wish to pick-up their clientele at Pearson Airport. The Exemption also violates point-of-pick-up Provincial Statute that basically states you must be licensed in the jurisdiction you pick-up in.
Prior to 2 December 1996, Toronto taxi and livery drivers could make pick-ups at the airport without paying any special fees but as of this date, that all changed. The Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) took over operation control of Lester B Pearson Airport from Transport Canada in a signed leased agreement to last 60 years with the option of a further 20-year extension. The GTAA is alleged to be a private not-for-profit corporation so I am wondering where the millions of dollars that have been charged to our members over the past 33 years have gone? Surely you don’t want any person of ordinary care and judgment to believe that these fees were and are necessary to keep up Pearson Airport service? Those costs should be redeemed from your licensed taxis and limousines, not from outside interests.
In 1980 the then Minister on Inter-Governmental Affairs The Honourable Tom Wells met with representatives from the GTAA and all surrounding municipalities to discuss the Airport Exemption. Keep in mind that even though this legislation was strictly targeted for the City of Toronto, they pushed it through under a Province wide guise, therefore mandating all airports and transportation carriers throughout the Province to abide by it if there is an airport within or surrounding their jurisdictions. After these meetings concluded, Minister Wells agreed this was unfair legislation and would have it removed. It never saw the floor of Queens Park thus was never repealed and continues to this day.
From 2004 through 2007, I sat on a Toronto taxi committee with Mr. Andy Reti and Mr. Hillel Gudes formed to look into this issue. We held extensive meetings with just about every politician and bureaucrat at Queens Park and at the end of those meetings, the present sitting government through the then Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing the Honourable John Gerretsen and his parliamentary assistant at that time Brad Duguid agreed to not include the Exemption in the upcoming Toronto Act (2006) that was replacing the Municipal Act as far as the City of Toronto was concerned.
The GTAA taxi and limousine operators challenged this Act on the Exemption point in the courts and a temporary injunction was issued to stop the City of Toronto from enforcing the Act. Before it ever got to court the then Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, which I cannot in all honesty say was, is, or will ever be Honourable, Jim Watson with a stroke of a pen put the Exemption into the Toronto Act (2006), which interfered not only with our judicial system but there were never major stakeholders’ meetings held or any reason given why this Minister’s own government allowed this change thus breaking their word to us. Perhaps the rumours of an immediate $250,000 campaign donation from the GTAA taxi and limousine drivers to the Ontario Liberal Party’s war chest at the time of the court case was the real reason why this was done as there is no other logical explanation for this move.
Our committee has attempted for the past 4 years to find out why the Toronto Act (2006) was altered by the Province to include the Exemption. We have not had any success other than the inferences by many Queens Park MP’s that the final decision came right from Premier McGuinty’s office therefore they claim their hands are tied on this issue.
Mayor Ford and the City of Toronto need to approach the Province to reverse this unfair legislation. I must point out that it is not only unfair to the Toronto taxi and livery operators but the City of Toronto itself as the Province has violated its agreement with the City in the area of licensing as the Act was supposed to give them unchallenged authority to license as they deem fit within their city boundaries.
I could supply dozens of letters on this subject matter if necessary, but it is mandatory that the City have this exemption removed not only from the Toronto Act (2006) but 2 other provincial statutes as well. This would ensure that the GTAA taxi and livery drivers don’t, down the road, try to alter the Toronto Act, by using back door methods of other statutes that deal with the same issue. I have them listed below.
Ontario Regulation 288/09 under the City of Toronto Act, 2006
HYPERLINK "http://www.ontario.ca/ontprodconsume/groups/content/@onca/@so/@gazette/documents/document/on06_019041.pdf" http://www.ontario.ca/ontprodconsume/groups/content/@onca/@so/@gazette/documents/document/on06_019041.pdf
Section 156 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (Under the heading “Airports”)
HYPERLINK "http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01m25_e.htm#s156s1" http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01m25_e.htm#s156s1
Section 39.1 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act
HYPERLINK "http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK70" http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK70
September 22, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee
City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
In 2010, the City of Toronto’s Board of Health held meetings in regards to its vehicle and boat idling by-laws. As a result of those meetings, wholesale changes were made. The three minutes allowed for idling was reduced to one minute and the allowable idling of a vehicle or boat when temperatures were below 5c or above 27c was rescinded other than emergency vehicles in performance of their duties or if the operator produces a medical letter stating it would be a health issue if the operator could not idle during the aforementioned temperatures.
The notification that these meetings were going to occur was sparse at best. The only taxi industry member that attended that I am aware of was Mr. John Duffort of the Toronto Taxicab Industry Association. I do not know how Mr. Duffort became aware of those meetings but the rest of our 10,000 plus membership were not aware and many would have attended if they knew. This is an extremely important issue to all taxi drivers as it involves our workplace. Upon further investigation I found few city hall departments were aware of those meetings either and many, including ML&S staff would have given deputations regarding this item as it has a dramatic effect on the people they license.
I contacted Councillor Filion who chaired the committee that rendered this decision and asked to have it re-opened due to the negative effect it has not only on a taxi driver’s workplace health but also the consumers they carry. He refused to re-open this issue stating that proper notification had been given to when the meetings were held and we should have addressed committee at that time and as far as he was concerned the matter is closed.
I also contacted the City of Toronto Board of Health and received a response from Ms Rosemarie Mishaiel, Consultant, Health Promotion, Healthy Public Policy Team 1 for the City of Toronto. I pointed out that a taxicab is a taxi driver’s workplace and it was unhealthy for a driver to sit for any length of time in either sweltering heat or frigid cold and in my opinion it also violated the Toronto Licensing By-law #545 that mandates a taxi driver must supply on demand a heated or cooled taxicab for the consumer.
I further pointed out that the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act guarantees all Ontario workers a safe and healthy workplace. She informed me that staff from city legal feel that the requirements of the new idling by-law do not jeopardize compliance with the heating/cooling obligations as set out in the by-law and if I thought it violated provincial statute, I should contact the Minister of Labour for the province.
Is there a reason why Toronto taxi drivers are not afforded the same considerations for a healthy workplace why all other city workers are? Does city hall staff not have a proper heated or cooled workplace? Even street people are treated better. When the outside temperatures reach below freezing, the City sends out vehicles to bring these people to a shelter where it is warm and they are given something warm to eat and drink. When the outside temperatures rise to sweltering heights, the City opens up their facilities that are air-conditioned and offer these people something cool to drink.
Although I disagree with Toronto legal’s interpretation of the laws surrounding these circumstances and believe they could be successfully challenged and would be reversed at the provincial level, why should our drivers have to go to that length? Doesn’t common sense and decency dictate that the right thing to do here is to allow a taxi to idle when the temperatures dip below 5C or rise above 27c? With the present economic down swing, it is not unusual for a taxi driver to sit 1 to 2 hours between orders. Is it the City’s position that a driver must first become ill before they will do the right thing here?
The industry would like to point out to the City that they are fully aware of the need to reduce emissions from idling vehicles and we are more than willing to do our part especially with the price of fuel being around $1.30 per litre. But there is an obvious difference between a vehicle idling while the driver is running into a store to buy an item for example than a taxi driver in their workplace trying to keep a certain level of comfort for health reasons and consumer service.
For all the aforementioned reasons, the Toronto taxi industry would like the City Department of Health to re-open this issue with the eventual outcome being that a taxi driver, while in performance of their duties is allowed to idle their vehicle when the outside temperatures fall below 5c or rise above 27c. If this department refuses to address our concerns then I believe council needs to take it into their own hands and allow taxi drivers this exemption.
Letter #10 Accessible On-Demand Taxicab Service
September 23. 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
Before the City can responsibly deal with this item, there are more questions to be asked than have been presently answered. By 2014 the Province of Ontario, as part of the overall plan of accessibility in all areas of the Province by 2020, has stated that they want taxis to be accessible. But the question is, how many taxis must be accessible? Surely they cannot mean every taxi in the province? That would be unnecessary, unwarranted and cost prohibitive.
If their plan is to have every taxi in the province partake in this service, It will cost the taxi industry numerous customers as many cannot access a van whether it has a ramp or not and many other of our consumers do not want to be serviced by a van as they prefer sedan service. So, the first thing to do is to find out what the Province’s direction is in this area and find out what the concrete date is that they want all of this to commence.
What then first has to be ascertained is what percentage of the population requires this kind of service in the City of Toronto. The Province also has to consider that the City of Toronto is already addressing in part this issue, which differs from the vast majority of municipalities throughout Ontario. I believe the Toronto Transportation Commission (T.T.C.) would be a good place to start as they have those figures as far as the City of Toronto is concerned from servicing the physically challenged for many years now. When those numbers are attained, then you can sensibly address the number of on-demand accessible taxis that would be needed.
The City would then have to come to a consensus as to whether the TTC is the right venue to address this issue as they already deal with this particular community or is it time that all accessible transportation concerns on-demand or otherwise should come under the city’s taxi industry. We already have a number of licensed taxi vans assigned solely to the TTC for accessible servicing and that maybe sufficient to meet the on-demand servicing that the Province might be looking for.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of physically challenged consumers will stay with the TTC as they pay only a regular TTC fare for their present servicing whereas vehicles in the regular taxi community would be charging regular meter rates for the on-demand servicing unless the City wants to subsidize this service. If regular rates must be paid I would think the on-demand accessible servicing through regular taxi channels would be very sparse at best.
It has always been my opinion that the Toronto taxi industry could do a much better job in the overall servicing of the physically challenged community. Presently, the TTC sedan contract only takes advantage of 35% to 40% of the City’s taxi sedan fleet. It is also incorrect to solely tie up licensed taxi vans to one service as their licensing mandate is to service all city consumers who require taxi servicing whether sedan or vans.
By the taxi industry setting up their own central office or depot for accessible servicing whether pre-book or on-demand, it would remove the several millions of dollars that the City is presently paying for administrating the taxi portion of this service to the three Toronto taxi brokerages who presently have either and/or van and/or sedan contracts with the TTC.
Having been involved in the first taxi contract for accessible servicing in the early nineties, it was evident from the start that the TTC does not competently know how to set up their own daily pick-ups and I know for a fact that our industry could do a much better job. Setting up TTC routes on major streets for their buses, streetcars and subways is one thing but setting up a competent and complete citywide service that has to take into account all city streets, traffic and weather conditions is another.
This is of course just a beginning to a rather complex issue that would take a great deal of time and energy from the taxi industry’s position to set up and of course that would include handing over the reins from the TTC. It doesn’t have to all be done overnight and could follow a smooth transference so as the service would not be affected.
It would also be a more cost effective way to handle this service as the only employees would be the ones manning the communications center unless their wages and benefits are obtained from a monthly dues schedule coming from the taxi industry. The taxi drivers doing the service are all independent contractors that supply their own equipment and vehicles. Also add into that scenario that the recipients will then draw service from one singular location and have the advantage of the entire Toronto taxi fleet.
But time marches on ladies and gentlemen and 2014 is just around the corner and will be upon us before you know it so the City of Toronto needs to forthwith get moving on this and make a decision on which direction they want to take.
Letter #11 Standard License Ownership
September 24, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee
City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
The vast majority of municipalities around the world recognize the true owner of a standard taxi license is the name on the ownership. Because the City of Toronto has allowed their taxi industry to evolve into a business with business opportunities, I believe that is true in our city as well. Because the by-law states the City owns the standard plate does not make it so.
Consider three basic points:
The standard license ownership has never been registered to the City of Toronto, but to an individual, business or corporation.
When the standard taxi license is purchased on the open market, the revenues of the sale do not go to the City but to the registered owner on the ownership.
The Toronto Licensing & Standards division is alleged to work on a cost recover basis only. I believe they have exceeded that mandate and entered into feeding from the free enterprise trough. Example a) Taxi license fees are among the highest in the world b) Why does it cost $4,470.85 to issue or register a standard license when all that is entailed is filling out a couple of simple forms?
It is overdue for the City of Toronto to get out of the taxi business and re-enter into what their mandate is, which is setting regulations for customer service, taxi drivers, properly repaired and maintained vehicles while ensuring they are sufficiently insured. The ownership of a Toronto standard license needs to be recognized in the by-law as the person on the registration, not the City of Toronto.
Because the City has allowed their taxi industry to evolve into a business, trying to control market values of these licenses or limiting the number that an individual or corporation owns should not be the position of the City and is not attempted in any other business license that the City issues. Good customer service is the City’s mandate, nothing else.
For example if someone is issued a city business license to operate and own a restaurant, does the City mandate that the person hold a chef’s license or tell that individual they can only own one restaurant? If someone is issued a city license to operate and own a garage, does the City mandate that the person hold a mechanic’s license or tell that individual they can only own one garage? Then why does the City make an individual who owns a standard taxi license attend their taxi school and have a taxi license to operate a standard license and then tell that individual they can only own one taxi?
I have heard for the almost four decades that I have been in the Toronto taxi industry that the City would like to see individuals enter the City’s taxi industry and make it their life’s work. How do you think this is possible when you have such stringent rules as to ownership and handcuff any growth potential? What you have created is the exact opposite and for the most part attracted the transient worker, as there are virtually no business opportunities for growth in our industry.
With the ownership of the standard license in the name of the registered owner or corporation, it now becomes a chattel with a solid market value that can be taken to a bank or lending institution and used as collateral for business expansion.
The transferring or leaving of a standard license in a will involving family members has to be straightened out as well. When these issues involve family members, why are there exorbitant transfer fees involved to make the name changes on this license and then the City tells the family if they own more than one license, they must sell the rest?
Many of the standard licenses were purchased on the open market as family assets with the purpose being they could be handed down to family members to sustain them when the owner has passed away. Why should these family members be punished because the City deems they should only own one license and pay an extravagant transfer fee as well? If the standard license owner wishes to transfer the ownership of the license to a family member whether the owner is alive or deceased, city hall should respectfully change it without charge and the limiting of ownership of only one standard license needs to be abolished.
The City has always stated when they issue this license that they were handing the individual their pension plan. The City needs to be brought into modern day on that statement. With the average monthly lease of a standard license being around $1,500 a month, after taxes that is reduced to approximately $1,000, which in most areas of the city would not even pay your rent. One license is a far cry than what is needed to retire on if you wish to live in the City of Toronto.
It is my belief that any business finds its own market value but where the problems always arise is when a city, province or country through regulations tries to interfere with that process and the end results are always disastrous.
Letter #12 Appropriateness Of The Number Of Taxicabs In The City
September 25, 2011
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee City Hall Toronto Ontario
Dear Councillor,
Staff has this as an agenda item and I must admit it is somewhat confusing to me. They use the word appropriate meaning, suitable, fitting, apt, proper, right and pertinent to name a few. This is nothing more than a smoke and mirror approach to this problem. Let’s call a spade a spade here and have no misunderstanding as to what the real issue is. The wording should say, “ Do we have too many taxis in Toronto and how do we address this concern.” Words such as suitable do not really fit what the true dilemma is here.
When a City decides how many taxis they want to service their city they use a per capita formula of one taxi for so many citizens. This is derived from an assessed view of the service required on an average normal day of city routine – not from extremes such as slow days in the summer or busy nights like New Years Eve when more taxis are needed.
Presently our ratio of cabs to population is one taxi per 536 citizens and one of the lowest in the world but this alone does not tell the whole story. Keep in mind this ratio represents taxis only and other transportation services are not considered in this formula. Presently Toronto has 750 licensed liveries; there are 750 GTAA (Greater Toronto Airport Authority) taxis and limousines and numerous other illegal carriers that either have another jurisdiction’s license or no license at all that also compete for our customers. When they are all added to the mix your per capita is now down to approximately one taxi per 268 citizens, which is the lowest per capita in the world when it comes to taxi and livery transportation servicing.
I am sure staff and committee will point out that some of these groups have particular licensing and servicing requirements that are not supposed to interfere with Toronto taxi servicing but in fact they do interfere. Because the City does not stringently check these carriers to see if they are properly licensed or work within the parameters of their issued license, the licensed taxis in Toronto are daily losing tens of thousands of dollars in business that they should be doing but in fact is being done by these other carriers.
So how can we fix this problem? It takes a three-prong approach. First, we need a great deal more street enforcement that targets the illegal carriers and ensures that airport carriers licensed by more senior statute only pick up the fares they are entitled to under the rules of their licenses.
Second, although the Airport Exemption is under provincial statute, the City of Toronto needs to meet with the Premier of Ontario and Queens Park representatives to remove this exemption from all provincial statutes. Toronto has seven times more licensed liveries and taxis than the GTAA presently has and are well equipped to meet and give the choice as to the transportation-servicing requirement of any person in our city. Secondly the Province’s promise to the City through the Toronto Act (2006) has been breached in regards to the City’s rights to license and needs to be re-established.
Last, but most important of all, is that the City must do a proper and impartial economic impact study that reflects a proper per capita licensing taxi formula to service the transportation needs of Torontonians. If this was done I believe it would show a formula in the vicinity of 1 taxi per 850 to 900 citizens is required, which was close to the formula we had prior to the Ambassador program and met the needs of the taxi and livery communities. I believe this formula would apply today, as the population of the City of Toronto has not appreciably increased in well over a decade.
How can this be achieved? By grandfathering out the Ambassador taxi program that was initially instituted by the previous L&S Committee but in reality by two of its members, Councillors Howard Moscoe and Denzil Minnan-Wong. They never showed a need for this program and refused my request of doing the economic impact study, as they very well knew it would not support their hidden agenda, which was to devalue the standard licenses so the City could buy them back at bargain basement prices and take back control of Toronto’s taxi industry.
When this is done, all drivers would be put back on a list that is done on a seniority basis only and when taxi licenses are issued on a needs basis only, they would be issued as a standard license from this list. This list must be made-up from all taxi industry members, not just the present Ambassador operators. Therefore all previous lists must be exhausted first or included by seniority on the new list. As the City will be issuing a chattel worth in the vicinity of $300,000 dollars on today’s market, federal statute mandates that all members in our industry must be given equal consideration for any City issued license.
You can be sure that this will not be the approach that all members in the Toronto taxi would like to see but if you look into this issue completely and get to know the history involved, it is the fairest approach to putting this industry back on the road to financial recovery while still giving the required level of taxi service to all of our patrons.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Letter #12(B) Appropriateness of the number of plates in the city
Councillor Cesar Palacio
Chairman, L&S Committee
City Hall
Toronto Ontario.
Dear Councillor,
The vast majority of politicians, bureaucrats and industry members believe our problems with the present number of taxis in the City of Toronto began with the enactment of the Ambassador Taxi Program in 1998. That is untrue. Many of the aforementioned people weren’t born, possibly in either public or high school or not even in Canada when the industry suffering began as to the number of taxis presently on our streets. The only exception to that would be if you are an old warhorse such as myself or our present Acting Director of the Municipal Licensing & Standards, Mr. Bruce Robertson as we have been around for almost four decades and have seen this mess come to fruition over the years.
This all started in 1963 when the City of Toronto recognized an intrinsic value of a Toronto taxi plate and legalized its sale on the open market and a transfer fee payment was made to the City of Toronto. As of this date if true ownership had been recognized none of the problems that have evolved over the past 50 years would have occurred. If the City of Toronto had followed the Mississauga example of recognizing true taxi ownership we in the Toronto taxi industry would not be facing the myriad of problems we do today.
It continued when they enacted the recommendations of the flawed City commissioned reports on the taxi industry prepared by Coopers – Lybrand in both 1982 and 1987.That was followed up with the superfluous implementation of the Toronto Taxi Review proposals in 1998. It was obvious in each one of these situations that Toronto city hall politicians and bureaucrats had a poor understanding and a care less attitude towards the Toronto taxi industry or we would not have the excessive number of taxis on our streets that exists today.
After 1963, cash-in fleet operations were the norm and taxi plate leasing evolved from that cash-in operation. The Toronto licensing commission allowed leasing in 1974 but never made the necessary by-law changes to reflect “ the truth of the matter.” In 1995, then Toronto licensing commissioner and councillor Howard Moscoe was quoted in “Taxi News” that we are “living the lie of leasing” in regards to plate leasing.
Most responsible cities enact a taxi license per capita ratio that meets consumer need while addressing the fact that the taxi driver must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to earn a living. That formula is usually around 1 per 800 to 1 per 1,200 citizens. Prior to 1982, that formula in Toronto was 1 taxi per 850 citizens, which was a responsible license issuing formula that addressed the aforementioned criteria and need.
In 1961 the population of the City of Toronto including the boroughs of North York, East York, Scarborough and Etobicoke was 1,620,841. When you divide that by 850 you will see there should have been 1,907 taxis. 20 years later in 1981, the population had risen to 2,137,395, an increase of 516,554. That should have necessitated an increase of 607 standard taxi licenses bringing the fleet’s size to 2,514.
In 1982 followed by 1987, the City began issuing as to the Coopers-Lybrand flawed recommendations. One of the numerous flaws included taking into consideration arrivals at Pearson Airport, notwithstanding that no Toronto taxi was allowed to pick up at the airport. The standard license issuance continued through 1995 with the standard plate-issuing list being frozen in 1986 and eventually disbanded in 1998. From 1981 through 1996 the population had risen to 2,385,421 and increase of 248,026, which should have necessitated 291 standard plates to be issued bringing the fleet size to 2,805. On the 24 April 1995, the City issued its final standard license #3480, which brought the total to more than 675 unnecessary taxis and arbitrarily reduced our per capita licensing issuing formula from 1 per 850 to 1 per 686 without showing a need.
In 1998, the City decided to implement the taxi license issuing recommendations of the Reformation Taxi Meetings that were held even though their own staff report did not recommend it and the L&S Committee disregarded information given to them by long-standing members in the industry. Originally the recommended Ambassador Taxi Program was only supposed to be approximately 300 but that number quickly rose to 700 and in the infinite wisdom of Councillor Moscoe, he doubled that number to 1,400 under the guise that the driver was mandated to work only 12 hours per day so therefore we needed twice as many taxis.
Of course if the Councillor had read the Municipal Code for Toronto taxis, he would have seen that no taxi driver is supposed to work more than 12 hours in any given day regardless of what kind of taxi is driven. This councillor’s only concern was to reduce the open market value of the standard license, eventually buy them back at bargain basement prices and turn them all into Ambassador taxis thus regaining total control of the Toronto taxi industry. Industry health and customer service had little to do with his objectives.
I personally asked for an economical impact study to be done in 1998 before this program began but I was refused. Why you say? Simply put the study would have revealed there wasn’t any need for a license issuance of any kind and that would have shot down the sinister plans of not only Councillor Moscoe but Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong as well. So city council without any idea of what was going on passed this agenda and put us in the kettle of fish we are in today because of that action.
The final Ambassador license #1400 was issued on 1 June 2005 from the reformation study recommendations and our fleet size reached 4,880 taxis. This again arbitrarily dropped our per capita formula down from 1 per 686 to 1 per 536 without showing a need, which is 2 times lower than most cities around the world. Keep in mind that the formula does not include the 750 Toronto liveries, 750 GTAA (Greater Toronto Airport Authority) taxis and limousines and the estimated 500 to 1,000 illegal taxis and limousines that all pick up in our city on a daily basis. Add all of these transportation carriers to your formula, it is now been further reduced to approximately 1 per 268, which is 3 to 4 times lower than any city in the world.
Although stats Canada only records population growths for a 5-year period, it has been brought to my attention from government sources and articles I have read, the present population of Toronto is approximately 2,600,000. The correct stats for the period of 2006 to 2011, will not become available to early 2012, but the number I have quoted appears to be a responsible figure. Applying the 1 taxi per 850 the City should presently have 3,060 taxis, not 4,880. With the present 4,880 taxis in our city and applying the 1 per 850 formula to just the taxi fleet, that would make our per capita presently 1 per 533 or roughly 1 per 316 more than what is required without showing any additional need.
So, how do we resolve this dilemma? There is not a Toronto taxi driver that drives on a regular basis that will not tell you that business is down and their situation would be greatly enhanced if there were not as many taxis on the streets. We have no control on the economics of the situation, unemployment or continual demographic changes in our customer base that has ended up in a reduced usage of taxis so logic tells me there is only one way to address the issue and that is to reduce the number of taxis in the city. This will not adversely affect customer service but will once and for all bring the industry back on the road to health, which will afford the taxi driver a reasonable opportunity to earn a living within a normal working day, which in our industry is 10 to 12 hours per day.
How do we achieve the reduction and how many taxis should there be in Toronto are the next questions. The Ambassador operators have always claimed they should have been treated like standard license owners and received a standard plate not an Ambassador issue and I agree with that assessment. If they truly believe in that scenario then there is only one way to achieve it and that is to go back to the standard plate program that existed prior to 1998, open the frozen driver’s and owner’s lists and issue on a seniority basis. This would meet what the Ambassador operators say they are entitled to.
To do this you will have to come up with a responsible licensing issuing formula. Prior to 1981 that formula was 1 taxi per 850 citizens. Taking the present population of Toronto as roughly being 2,600,000 that would work out to the City needing 3,059 taxis. That in my opinion, is perhaps a little too low of a per capita due to the fact that we are Canada’s business capital and have many visitors as well so I would recommend 1 taxi per 700 citizens requiring the standard licenses to reach 3,714.
How is my per capita recommendation reached? Grandfather out all of the Ambassador taxis by the age of vehicle requirement as set in that program, which would take about 5 years to conclude. My formula requires 3,714 taxis and at present there are 3,480 standard licenses so it would require a standard license issuance of 234. These licenses would be issued as stated in the taxi by-laws prior to 1998, which I believe was 90% to drivers and 10% to owners as to the seniority on their lists. 3,714 standard licenses without the Ambassador program is a number that the industry can live with.
The Ambassador operators that did not receive one of the 234 new issued standard licenses would be put back on a combined seniority list that reflects their years of service in the industry and consisting of both drivers and owners without the possibility of any additions to that list. When in the future, population increases and needs are shown, then additional standard licenses would be issued from that singular list until it is exhausted. In this way the Ambassador operators would receive standard plates from a seniority list when issued, be back with the full benefit of the standard license program and would have the opportunity to recoup the full value of the costs involved in their purchased cars and equipment.
The City might be considering converting all the Ambassador licenses to standard licenses and freeze any future issuance until the population increases to the point if reflects the number of taxis to citizens in a responsible licensing issuing formula. This would not be an advisable way to deal with this issue. For instance if your formula reflected a 1 per 850 per capita formula and you consider all 4,880 taxis, the population would have to reach 4,150.000, which would call for a 1,550,000 increase from today’s population. Do you have any realization as to how many years would be required to attain those numbers? Let me extrapolate the mathematics of the situation so you can reflect on it.
Seeing as it took 50 years to see Toronto go from 1,620,861 to 2,600,000 an increase of 979,139 and using the 1,550,000 additional needed population increase to meet the 1 per 850 formula with the present number of 4,880 taxis in the city’s fleet, it would take Toronto about 75 years at its present population growth to obtain it.
And what would you say to the taxi driver during those 75 years who is trying to earn a living? Suck it up, it doesn’t matter to Toronto city hall whether you make a living or not? You may save 15 years or so if you implement my 1 taxi per 700 per capita formula but it will still necessitate about 60 years of bondage for the Toronto taxi driver as far as making a reasonable living is concerned if you enact this process.
The City of Toronto’s handling of the number of allowed taxis on our streets has been deplorable to say the least. Consumer service was a very small part in their decision process as the City issued well over 1,000 unnecessary taxi licenses. Giving the taxi driver a reasonable opportunity to earn a living was never in the equation either or we would not have anywhere near 4,880 taxis on the streets of Toronto.
There is another culprit that should be severely admonished over this issue and that is the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing. The Municipal Act was the governing legislation at the time and it was this Ministry who allowed the City to enter into this two-tier program without lifting an investigative finger to see if it was necessary or the harm it would surely cause down the road. Remember that the Toronto Act (2006) was a few years down the road and licensing overview responsibilities came under this Ministry’s privy at that time.
You have to ask yourself, why would the City issue 1,000 plus more taxi licenses then required? Only two irrefutable answers ladies and gentlemen. The $10,000,000.00 in annual licensing fees that they recoup from our industry and the failed plan of 1998, the Ambassador taxi program that was solely designed to drive the price of the standard licenses down to bargain basement prices so the City could buy them back and take over the industry in its entirety.
Although my recommendations will not sit well with all of our industry’s membership or city hall I am sure, it does take all the parameters of the issue into account and at the end proposes a responsible and effective plan that will return the Toronto taxi industry to a state of well being while ensuring the service our customers deserve.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Industry veteran and frequent Taxi News contributor Gerry Manley has written a series of letters addressing what he believes are the most pressing issues industry members should be considering prior to attending the major stakeholders’ meetings for the taxi industry review. You will find all of them here.
Here are Gerry Manley’s major stakeholders letters
UPDATE from Andy Réti
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE NUMBER
OF TAXICABS IN TORONTO
Click here for the letter from Andy
Letter #1 Ambassador Taxi Program
Letter #2 Credit & Debit Machines
Letter #6 Singular Dedicated Vehicle
Letter #7 Hand Held Devices & Illegal Ticketing
Letter #10 Accessible On-Demand Taxicab Service
Letter #11 Standard License Ownership
Letter #12 Appropriateness Of The Number Of Taxicabs In The City
Letter #12 B Appropriateness of the number of plates in the city
