In an industry rampant with bylaw-prohibited taxi-plate leasing, whereby non-driving plate holders glean nearly a million dollars annually from local lease operators, TRG was protesting discriminatory licensing practices and the profiteering and exploitation of individuals who cannot acquire their own city business licence to operate a taxicab.
Wells and Orser, both former cabbies, were "blacklisted" by the cab industry for speaking out against these archaic licensing and industry conditions. They filed a Petition Request for a Commission of Inquiry, pursuant to section 178 of the Municipal Act, citing 35 specific concerns with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
The 114-page document was given to the local field office on January 11, 1994, with several members of the media in attendance.
The concerns of the Coalition petitioners ranged from the outrageous practice of plate-leasing and the undisclosed conflict of interest of several members of London City Council pertaining to the taxi industry, to the biased representation on the city's Taxi Liaison Subcommittee, whereby the "plate barons" were permitted to handpick their driver representatives on the committee.
While the thrust of the Coalition's inquiry request was to draw attention to the unfairness of arbitrary limits on cab plates, it also drew attention to the city's bylaw which also required that all driver applicants obtain a "note" from the two local taxi brokers before they could write the city's driver examination.
"Simply stated," commented Wells, "the local cab industry was a self-perpetuating duopoly, the entrance fee to even drive a cab being the written permission of those controlling the industry, who do everything in their power to block industry competition from all wishing to make a living outside their own lucrative taxi brokerages."
Public documents show that Aboutown Transportation Ltd. (and its associated corporate officers and numbered companies) was the largest single contributor to candidates in the 1991 municipal election, even exceeding those of local land developers. Aboutown also holds 66 taxi-plates, while dispatching a fleet of approximately 100 taxicabs.
"While this may help explain why getting industry reform passed by Council has been so difficult over the years," says Wells, "the real reason is ignorance - of both local politicians and the drivers themselves. While the city regulates the industry through its licensing bylaw, it doesn't have a clue how it actually operates. The drivers on the other hand are constantly changing, and those that do make it a career, fear employer reprisal should they challenge the industry status quo.
"Since most drivers don't have the $30,000 to purchase a cab plate from a plate holder, they are permitted to put their name on a priority list of applications, currently over 400 names long. If you applied in 1994 for a plate, at the present rate of movement on the list, you would receive your licence around the year 2015 at the earliest. In the meantime, you are forced to either drive for someone else or rent their licence at $6,000 per year (plus the costs of buying the car, insuring and repairing it, and paying dispatch fees to the cab company.)"
On May 31, 1994, the TRC received a 12-page reply from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Ed Philip, outlining why he was not ordering a formal inquiry into the London taxi industry. Essentially, he cited the enormous cost of a public inquiry ($20,000 per day), and noted that London has taken corrective action through numerous bylaw amendments, since TRC's inquiry request was filed in January.
While the city has made numerous bylaw amendments, including hiring a full-time taxi inspector and turfing the absurd "note" requirement before one could even apply for a city driver's permit most of the changes were cosmetic and failed to address the real issue - open access to cab plates by those ready, willing and able to operate their own taxicab without the parasitical interference of those currently controlling the industry.
"The two local cab bosses have continually argued that open entry to the business would result in a market-flood," retorts Wells, "with no one making enough money to repair their vehicles. The TRC has consistently called such reasoning bogus, and little more than a vested-interest argument by those who refuse to give up ownership of the goose that lays the golden egg. TRC believes strict pre-licensing conditions (difficult driver testing, increased licensing fees, and enhanced vehicIe requirements), combined with open entry, would prevent a market-flood, while bringing the industry in line with the Charter and the principles of a free and democratic society. Simply stated, an individual's right to make a lawful living should never be impeded by any level of government. One only has to look at the current taxi industry, with its unsafe vehicles and poorly-trained drivers, to see if it is operating in the public interest. It is not."
GET THE DETAILS! Readers interested in receiving more background information on this issue are invited to contact Freedom Party.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
