Hamilton rules would leave Uber, taxis on uneven playing field

Many councillors unimpressed with proposed Uber rules

Thespec.com
April 21, 2016
By Matthew Van Dongen

The city will try to hold Uber to as many new rules as it thinks the global ride-hailing giant will actually agree to follow.

But that's not the same as trying to enforce a "level playing field" with traditional taxi drivers, admitted licensing director Ken Leendertse at a city committee meeting Wednesday.

Leendertse introduced councillors to new draft regulations for ride-hailing, which the public can comment on this summer, that include separate licensing fees for so-called "personal transportation providers." A bylaw would go to council for approval in the fall.

Many councillors expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed separate rules, arguing the existing taxi rules are still more stringent and costly.

"Why can't we just put the words 'ride-sharing' into the existing (taxi) bylaw?" asked Coun. Tom Jackson, drawing applause from the nearly 50 taxi drivers watching in council chambers.

That's the question Jagir Multani, a cab driver for 32 years, asked after the meeting. He argued Mississauga has taken a harder line with Uber, telling it to stop service while it debates future regulation.

The Blueline driver called the effort to create a different, but less strict regulatory regimen "garbage."

"They should have to come under the same umbrella (of rules) that we have been facing for the past 80, 90 years," he said.

That would leave the city with a "wild west scenario," said Leendertse, who estimated there are around 500 Uber drivers who would be unable to abide by bylaw provisions that include obtaining a legal taxi plate.

"So they would just ignore (the bylaw) ... and it becomes an enforcement issue."

The city has charged 32 different Uber drivers under the existing bylaw for not having a taxi licence. None of those cases have been settled, Leendertse said.

That enforcement hasn't stopped the estimated 12,000 or so riders from using the service in Hamilton, he said.

Hamilton Cab CEO Jagtar Singh Chahal argued the city could crack down harder, noting Mississauga has charged more than 200 drivers so far. "We could help them," he said. "There are Uber drivers sitting in Hess Village ... we could point them out."

The proposed new ride-hailing regulations would charge Uber about $50,000 to be licensed in Hamilton and would require police checks and Ministry of Transportation safety certification. Cars would also have to be clearly marked by affiliation, but rates would remain unregulated.

The new rules would not, however, force Uber drivers to install cameras, unlike taxi drivers. Some individual taxi driver fees would also remain higher.

On the other hand, mandatory driver training would disappear for taxi drivers and they would have the legal option to apply to operate under a "hybrid model" for unregulated rates if customers book trips via a smartphone app. Traditional dispatched cabs and those hailed from an official taxi stand would still need to abide by regulated fares.

It's not perfect, said Coun. Sam Merulla, but it's better than "driving the industry underground" and leaving both riders and drivers with "zero protection."

Merulla nonetheless earned councillor support for two motions: one calling on Uber to cease operations until it proves to the city's satisfaction that it has sufficient insurance, the other vowing to request a court injunction if Uber doesn't abide by the incoming rules.

Uber spokesperson Susie Heath said via email the company is "supportive" of the staff report, which "includes recommendations for regulations that make sense for ridesharing."

Heath didn't comment on the motion asking the company to cease operations until insurance questions are settled.

A pre-meeting email blast from Uber, however, asked its customers and drivers to contact their councillors to speak against the injunction motion. "If this motion is passed, ride-sharing in Hamilton is at risk," it reads.

Taxi drivers and owners crowded the chamber and cheered the injunction motion - while catcalling Leendertse' assertion that "Uber is here to stay."

"No. No, it's not," they yelled.