3. REPLACEMENT OF THE TAXI
ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH A NEW TAXI STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION GROUP
Remplacement du Comité
consultatif sur les taxis par un nouveau groupe consultatif des intervenants
de l’industrie du taxi |
That Council:
1.
endorse the creation and objectives
of a new Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group;
2.
endorse the plan for the selection
of members to, and the composition of the Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group;
3. disband the Taxi Advisory Committee.
Que le Comité des services communautaires et de protection recommande au
Conseil :
1.
d’appuyer la création et les
objectifs d’un nouveau Groupe consultatif des intervenants de l’industrie du
taxi;
2.
d’appuyer le plan de sélection des
membres et la composition du Groupe consultatif des intervenants de l’industrie
du taxi.
3. de
dissoudre le Comité consultatif sur les taxis.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services
report dated 4 January 2008
(ACS2008-CPS-BYL-0004).
2. Extract of Draft Minute,
17 January 2008.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Community
and Protective Services
Comité des services communautaires
et de protection
and Council/et au Conseil
4 January 2008 / le 4 janvier 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal
adjoint,
Community and Protective
Services/Services communautaires et de protection
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Susan Jones, Director, By-law Services
By-Law Services/Services des règlements
municipaux
(613) 580-2424 x 25536, susan.jones@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Community and
Protective Services Committee recommend that Council:
1.
endorse the creation and objectives
of a new Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group;
2. endorse the plan for the
selection of members to, and the composition of the Taxi Stakeholders
Consultation Group;
3.
disband the Taxi Advisory Committee.
Que le Comité des
services communautaires et de protection recommande au Conseil :
1. d’appuyer
la création et les objectifs d’un nouveau Groupe consultatif des intervenants
de l’industrie du taxi;
2. d’appuyer
le plan de sélection des membres et la composition du Groupe consultatif des
intervenants de l’industrie du taxi.
3.
de dissoudre le Comité consultatif
sur les taxis.
The Taxi Advisory Committee was established by Council
in 2002. It was Council’s intent that
the Taxi Advisory Committee would work to represent both the interests of the
taxi industry and those it serves in order to promote and maintain a safe,
accessible and friendly environment for all customers. In its current state however, the Taxi
Advisory Committee has not fulfilled its mandate and objectives.
At its meeting of July 11th, 2007, Council
directed staff to reconstitute the existing Taxi Advisory Committee to enable
the Committee to be more effective and efficient.
The Department believes that Council’s objective of
improving the taxi service to the public can be better achieved through the
establishment of a departmental consultative group that would be known as the
Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group.
Such group’s membership would be balanced through the participation of
both industry and relevant stakeholder groups including one taxi broker, a
representative of the taxi union and a member of the general public.
Le Comité
consultatif sur les taxis a été établi par le Conseil en 2002.
L’intention du Conseil était que le Comité consultatif sur les taxis travaille
en vue de représenter autant les intérêts de l’industrie du taxi que ceux de
leur clientèle afin de promouvoir et de maintenir un milieu sécuritaire,
accessible et convivial pour toute la clientèle. Mais jusqu’à présent, le
Comité consultatif sur les taxis n’a pas réussi à remplir son mandat ni à
atteindre ses objectifs.
Lors de sa réunion du
11 juillet 2007, le Conseil a demandé au personnel de reconstituer le
Comité consultatif sur les taxis existant afin de permettre au Comité d’être
plus efficace et productif.
Le
Service croit que l’objectif du Conseil visant à améliorer le service de taxis
auprès de la population pourrait être réalisé en créant un groupe consultatif
du service qui serait appelé Groupe
consultatif des intervenants de l’industrie du taxi. L’équilibre des
membres d’un tel groupe serait atteint au moyen de la participation de membres
de l’industrie ainsi que d’un groupe d’intervenants du domaine, y compris un
concessionnaire de taxis, un représentant du syndicat des chauffeurs de taxi et
un membre du grand public.
BACKGROUND
The Taxi Advisory Committee was established by City Council in 2002. The Committee’s mandate was to act as a conduit between City Council, affected citizens and groups and the taxi industry and to work with stakeholders to encourage the self-management of the industry, so as to improve its overall efficacy. It was Council’s intent that the Committee would represent both the interests of the taxi industry and those it serves in order to best promote and maintain a safe, accessible and friendly environment for all customers, including seniors and those with disabilities. It was also intended that the Taxi Advisory Committee would work to encourage better communication between the industry, its customers and regulators; provide advice on better training for drivers; promote the use of environmentally friendly cabs; and recognize those drivers with superior driving records and customer service.
The membership of the Taxi Advisory Committee is outlined as follows:
Voting
Members
· 1 Taxi Broker
· Up to 3 Taxi Owners
· Up to 3 Taxi Drivers
· Up to 3 Members of the Public who do not have any pecuniary interest in the taxi industry
· A minimum of one citizen appointment representing the rural community
· 1 member from the Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority
· 1 member from the Ottawa International Airport Authority
Non-Voting Members One (1) representative from
each of the following:
· Algonquin College Taxi Driver Training Program
· Ottawa Accessibility Advisory Committee
· Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee
· Hotels and Conventions industry
Due to the current make-up of the Taxi Advisory
Committee, it has been unable to effectively provide advice on issues for which
Council sets policy and establishes licensing regulations for the taxi
industry.
As part of its consideration of a report on the
accessible taxicab service, Council at its meeting of July 11, 2007, directed
staff as follows:
“Be it resolved that the Taxi Advisory Committee be reconstituted to enable the Committee to be more effective and efficient and a report be prepared for the Community and Protective Services Committee on this topic.”
DISCUSSION
In response to Council direction,
staff believes that the existing composition of the Taxi Advisory Committee
must be revised. In its current state, the Taxi Advisory
Committee has not fulfilled its mandate and objectives, particularly in raising
issues to the level of Council. It is
believed that because the Committee is heavily weighted with members from the
taxi industry, the Taxi Advisory Committee has been preoccupied with internal
issues specific to the industry and not to the outward impact of the industry
on the public. This was clearly evident
last June when the Taxi Advisory Committee, without the benefit of any
discussion, rejected in its entirety a staff report proposing thirty-four
recommendations to improve accessible taxicab service in the City.
The Committee membership experiences a high
turnover and those members who resign are not easily replaced. The public members in particular tend to
become disengaged due to the complexity of the internal issues and tend to lose
interest in the Committee. Further, it
is reasonable and timely to review and revise the Committee’s structure and
Terms of Reference given in part that the harmonized taxi by-law has been
enacted.
The Department believes that
improving taxi service can be achieved through the establishment of a
departmental consultative group that would be known as the Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group. This new group would be co-chaired by the Chief License Inspector and one
other member of the proposed group, which would be comprised of the following:
Interested stakeholders would be required to submit an application to the Chief License Inspector based on new Terms of Reference. Issues discussed would relate directly to the taxi service and how to better serve the public. The meetings would be held a minimum of four times a year, or more if deemed necessary.
By-law & Regulatory Services Branch would
provide resources to make all necessary arrangements for conducting meetings
and be responsible for the preparation and distribution of agendas and
minutes. By-law & Regulatory
Services staff would coordinate and convene the meetings, and provide
administrative and other services, as required. Further to this, By-law & Regulatory Services staff would
accept submissions from the industry members and stakeholders regarding the
items for inclusion on an agenda and would inform members of the taxicab
industry and all interested industry stakeholders of the agenda as appropriate.
The objectives of the
Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group would be to:
In order to ensure the taxi industry has an opportunity to provide feedback on industry related issues, the By-law & Regulatory Service Branch will continue to hold separate meetings on a regular basis with the taxi industry directly. Any taxi licensee will have the opportunity to attend these meetings to speak with Branch staff. This group has met frequently since amalgamation, which has proven to be an effective means of addressing their specific issues.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no rural implications associated with the recommendation.
CONSULTATION
The proposal for the consultation group was presented to the Taxi Advisory Committee at its meeting of November 20th, 2007, at which time the Committee deferred its decision pending finalization of the staff report. A copy of the final report was provided to the Taxi Advisory Committee at its meeting of January 15th, 2008.
A notice advertising the date and time of the meeting at which the report will be discussed has appeared in the dailies in accordance with relevant City policy. Copies of the report have been made available upon request.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
If Council approves the recommendations, there will be an annual savings of $1,700 that has been allocated to the Taxi Advisory Committee in the City Clerk’s budget.
CITY STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
The recommendation does not directly impact the Strategic Directions related to transportation however it will contribute to improvements in Ottawa’s local taxicab industry.
DISPOSITION
1. City Clerk to notify existing members and member organizations of the Taxi Advisory Committee of Council’s decision.
2. Chief License Inspector to initiate
recruitment for members of the new Consultation Group.
REPLACEMENT OF THE TAXI ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH A NEW TAXI STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION GROUP
Remplacement
du Comité consultatif sur les taxis par un nouveau groupe consultatif des
intervenants de l’industrie du taxi
ACS2008-CPS-BYL-0004 CITY WIDE / À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
The Committee received a memo dated 15 January 2008 from the Taxi Advisory Committee (TAC) conveying the following recommendations:
1. That
the CPSC recommend that Council reject staff Recommendation 3 to disband
the TAC.
2. That the CPSC recommend that Council change the existing TAC
membership to reflect the proposed Working Group as recommended by staff with
the modification to include a representative of CAW Local 6056 and remove the
Taxi Plate Owner.
Personal comments from David Dunlop, Chair of the TAC were also received. Copies of both documents are held on file.
Susan Jones, Director of By-law and Regulatory Services gave a PowerPoint presentation on the item. A copy is held on file.
Responding to questions posed by Councillor Cullen, the Director advised that stakeholder members would be selected by staff through a request for applications. She confirmed the fact that as it stands now, the TAC has the capacity to make recommendations to this Committee, but with the proposed structure, they would rely on staff to bring forward any issues.
Councillor Qadri proposed the following:
That the
members of the Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group be amended to include one
additional union representative.
The Committee received the following public delegations:
Yusef Al Mezel, President, CAW Canada, Local 1688 and Vice Chair, TAC made the following points:
· The membership of the TAC has been appointed by City Council, not by the stakeholder
· He supported the membership as proposed by staff because it would work better, but, suggested the TAC remain as a link between the stakeholders, this Committee and Council and also the public
· The public can attend meetings of the TAC and express views
· Changing the format it is not a good message to send to the industry and to the public, who attend the TAC meetings regularly
Responding to a question posed by Councillor Cullen, Mr. Al Mezel advised it would be acceptable if the newly-formed TAC only met quarterly, provided the Committee could meet when important issues arise.
When asked what the difference is between an advisory committee and a stakeholders consultation group, Ms. Jones explained that the latter would be a departmental consultative group, which would report through her and an advisory committee would report to the CPSC and Council. She did not have any concerns about making the stakeholder meetings open to the public. If the Committee decided to take the union advice and allow them to continue to report through this Committee, Chair Deans inquired if this would be a problem for staff. Ms. Jones had no objections, and recognized the efficiencies that Council is trying to achieve with a variety of support services. She believed that what was being proposed was one additional way of doing things, while still achieving Council’s objective.
Marc André Way, Coventry Connections stated that he was a member of the TAC for two years and he did not have a preference for either an advisory committee or a stakeholders group. His concern is the composition of the group and the need to achieve a fair and balanced membership. He believed it was important to look at the level of service being provided to the City, which is the reason it is important to keep some of the membership that currently exists. He emphasized the importance of having both unions represented and suggested that to add a plate owner would unbalance things, especially when the unions represent the drivers.
When asked what the difference was between having a plate holder and two union representatives, the Director indicated that a plate holder is an individual who owns a taxicab plate; a union representative may not necessarily be a plate holder or a driver, but they would represent the industry (owners and drivers). She confirmed that the plate holder has to be a member of the union and altogether, they would have three representatives from the union. Councillor Bédard believed therefore that the Committee should add another representative of the broker and Ms. Jones advised that they were satisfied with one broker. Mr. Way interjected that adding a plate owner would put the brokers in a difficult position. He recommended that the Committee not support the Motion put forward by Councillor Qadri, but instead, approve that which was provided by the TAC, i.e., remove the plate holder and add a representative of the union. Failing that, he would recommend there be two brokers.
Robert Diotte spoke in opposition to the staff proposal for the following reasons:
· Only 11% of the membership would represent the public
· He did not believe the advisory committees that would be affected by this report (Accessibility and Roads and Cycling), have been consulted and strongly recommended that the Committee delay any recommendation until their input has been sought
· He did not agree that organizations such as the Ottawa-Gatineau Hotel Association, the Ottawa Airport, the Chamber of Commerce and the Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority would represent the public at large on this stakeholders group; the biggest stakeholder, and the least represented, is the resident and taxpayer
A copy of his written submission was provided after the meeting and is held on file.
Councillor
Feltmate inquired if the other advisory committees, referenced above, had been
notified and was advised by the Director they were not; however, the item was
advertised that it was under review and was brought twice to the TAC for
consideration. She added that they have
looked at the experiences of other cities across Canada and North America and
it is typical, based on the current format, that these committees have been
disbanded.
Councillor
Qadri asked how many of the public representatives on the TAC attended the
meetings on a regular basis. Ms. Jones
could not recall exactly, but indicated it has been difficult to get them
out. Also, they have had very few
members of the public attending their meetings.
Marion Williams observed that as a member of the public who has attended TAC meetings for two years, there is sense that they are not moving forward on any of the TAC agenda items. She remarked that it is not that their discussions have not been interesting, but when it comes to voting, they vote with one voice. She supported the staff recommendations with the ability to have open stakeholder meetings. Ms. Williams commented that if the Committee is going to add another member, that it be someone from the accessibility community because they utilize the accessible taxis and their input and voice would be very important and would help to balance out the vote.
To explain what she meant by ‘voting with one voice’, Ms. Williams explained that there is enough interest from the stakeholders that when a vote is made it is made with enough of the balance. The public expect leadership and that they can address the real issues, such as public safety. Unfortunately, the balance seems to be that while there are three public representatives on the TAC, they do not attend and it has not been a balanced vote when items are considered.
Chair Deans asked whether both union locals were equally represented on the current TAC and was advised by staff they were not; the larger union represents 2000 drivers whereas the smaller represents about 250 drivers. Speaking to the Motion, the councillor indicated she would support it if the Committee’s feeling is that it is tipping the balance too much in the favour of the stakeholders and she would recommend the Committee not do it as opposed to taking off the plate owner because those are the people who have a lot invested in the industry and who are trying to make it work. She believed it was important to keep the plate owner as a member because their perspective sometimes tends to be different from those representing the unions.
Councillor Bédard felt the new stakeholders make-up would do the same thing. He believed that if there is another member of the union added, the group will get into too much minutiae as was occurring with the current committee. If the Committee approves that, then he would recommend removing the plate owner because there needs to be a balance. He was in favour of supporting the staff recommendation, otherwise the membership will have to be increased by getting more brokers in or taking somebody off.
Councillor Holmes remarked that the TAC set up under the former City of Ottawa had the same operating difficulties and she was not in favour of adding another member. She emphasized that the TAC has to be interested in the public good, including: accessibility, level of service and public safety.
Councillor Bellemare believed that what staff is recommending redefines the whole balance. He noted that on the TAC, there are seven representatives who would advocate on behalf of specific interests and six representing public interests. With the new formula, however, there would actually be a greater representation on the part of the public. He would only support the Qadri Motion if the taxi plate owner is removed because they are, by necessity, a member of the union, and therefore it is less of an imperative to have that representative on the group. He believed that would make the group more effective and productive and would maintain an even balance.
Speaking to his Motion, Councillor Qadri indicated it conveys the message that the City is interested in the representation of the taxi industry and that there be a fair composition. The concern he had is if there is not a union perspective and only take it to one individual stakeholder or license owner, then this group will not fully represent the taxi industry. He recommended that the Committee support an additional union representative and remove a taxi plate owner.
While she did not have anything against adding the second local representative, Chair Deans thought the two views would be the same and there is a minor difference with the plate owner. She reiterated the need for a broad perspective in moving forward and the importance to have that representation, regardless of what it is called. She could not support the Qadri Motion if it meant the plate owner is removed.
Moved by S. Qadri
That the membership of the
proposed Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group as outlined in the report be
amended to include one (1) additional union representative.
LOST
YEAS (3): A. Cullen, S. Qadri, D. Deans
NAYS (5): M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, C. Leadman
Councillor
Cullen proposed the following:
a. That the Taxi Advisory Committee be
reconstituted on the basis of the 4 January 2008 report to CPS Committee.
b. And that the Taxi Advisory Committee
meet quarterly or more often at the call of the Chair.
c. And that the Taxi Advisory Committee
continue to report to the CPS Committee.
With
regards to the Motion, and in response to questions on the recruitment process
for an advisory committee, the Director explained that staff would be bound by
the protocols currently approved by Council to recruit taxi advisory committee
members. She noted that the challenge
has been that members will leave and they are not easily replaced. Under the new format, she would recruit
immediately without having to go through the process to recruit new members
under the terms of reference. On a
point of order, Councillor Cullen believed his Motion was being misinterpreted. Having reread the Motion, Chair Deans surmised
that it would substitute Recommendations 1 and 3 of the staff report and staff
Recommendation 2 would remain. When
asked whether approval of the Motion would, in effect, create an official
advisory committee, Carey Thomson, Legal counsel agreed with the Chair’s
interpretation of replacing two of the staff recommendations and he did not see
it forcing them into an official advisory committee mode. Upon further clarification, the Director
advised that if it remains an advisory committee it would be supported by the
City Clerk’s office.
Moved by A. Cullen
That the Community and Protective
Services Committee recommend to Council:
a. That
the Taxi Advisory Committee be reconstituted on the basis of the 4 January 2008
report to CPS Committee.
b. And
that the Taxi Advisory Committee meet quarterly or more often at the call of
the Chair.
c. And
that the Taxi Advisory Committee continue to report to the CPS Committee.
LOST
YEAS (3): A. Cullen, D. Holmes, D. Deans
NAYS (5): M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, P. Feltmate, C. Leadman, S.
Qadri,
That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that
Council:
1. Endorse
the creation and objectives of a new Taxi Stakeholders Consultation Group;
2. Endorse
the plan for the selection of members to, and the composition of the Taxi
Stakeholders Consultation Group;
3. Disband
the Taxi Advisory Committee.
CARRIED