The creation of a motor cab service in Halifax was initiated by a local hack owner, Fred Parsons, and the first local taxi driver, James Wood. In 1911, Parsons and Wood brought the first motor taxi to Halifax. Wood, a thirty year old mechanic, and Parsons, an operator of a fleet of fourteen hacks, agreed to start a motorized taxi business and purchased a "shiny, deluxe Seldon." The car was originally owned by William Firth, a wealth banker in the United States. Wood was the driver of the first motor taxi in Halifax and taught Parsons to operate the car three years later. At a time when few people in Halifax owned gasoline-driven vehicles the taxi was a novelty. Before the motorized taxicab became common in Halifax the city was served by "hackmen" and their horse-drawn carriages. Similar in style to the Hackney carriages from London, the vehicles in Halifax were referred to as "hacks." These carriages were usually closed and capable of seating at least four passengers in addition to the driver. Other carriages, such as a barouche, might be substituted in the summer, and a sleigh in the winter. The vehicles were for hire and operated similarly to the modern taxi, however each hack was assigned to a specific stand. It is unclear how common it was for hackmen to pick up fares while travelling the street. It seems that after each customer was taken to his or her destination the hackman returned to his assigned stand. However, a newspaper feature looking back at the first Halifax taxi describes Jimmy Wood "rumbling over the cobblestones and the dirt streets of Halifax looking for business."

This unusual motorized vehicle had some difficulty finding willing passengers. "In those days drivers had to coax passengers into their vehicles." This is not necessarily an indication that the public was particularly shy of the motorized vehicle, because hackmen, at this time, were being criticized for too vigorously soliciting passengers. As one customer declared: "I never take a cab belonging to any cabman who acts like a wild man when asking for a fare." It seems that regardless of the type of vehicle, passengers were not abundant in early twentieth century Halifax. Perhaps it is for this reason that growth of the motor cab industry was slow.

The hackmen and their vehicles were licensed and regulated by the municipal government and controlled through city ordinance. When the first motor cab was introduced, regulations for the licensing and operation of vehicles for hire were already in place. For several years after the introduction of Wood's and Parson's first taxi the motor cabs and horse drawn hacks operated side by side, often out of the same livery stables, and were governed by the same municipal regulations.

The Halifax City Council has historically been responsible for the regulation of the taxi industry.

Orginally the Halifax Police Station, as the licensing and policing body of the industry, maintained records regarding the number of drivers licensed.

Because of their work environment and culture, taxi drivers labour under considerable pressures preventing community expression and collective action. However, despite these forces taxi drivers display a significant amount of cooperation and cohesion.

The relationship between taxi drivers and the industry regulators is ambiguous. Drivers both actively initiate change and are subject to change within the industry. Halifax taxi drivers are neither wholly in control of their industry nor are they completely complacent or submissive to the decisions of the regulators.

In response to the problems of early twentieth century urban growth a new form of city government was introduced in Halifax. The Halifax Board of Control was created to enable a city-wide approach to problems such as transportation. In his article "The Halifax Board of Control: The Failure of Municipal Reform, 1906-1919," Henry Roper describes the rise of this new city government and how its success was thwarted by personal conflicts between Controllers. The Board of Control established in 1913 was strongly opposed by prominent municipal leaders. The first four controllers elected in 1913 included "two able men," Reginald V. Harris and W.F. O'Connor and two former aldermen who "brought the flavour of the old council with them, to the discomfort of the fastidious Harris and O'Connor." Roper contends that the two former aldermen, Charles R. Hoben and Matthew Scanlan, "showed little capacity to rise above petty rivalry," suggesting that, from the beginning, the Board was crippled by personal and ideological conflicts. The new taxi industry, therefore, began while the civic regulatory bodies were in a state of flux and new taxi regulations would need the approval of both the Board of Control and the City Council.

In 1914 the ordinance governing the operation of hacks showed little evidence of the existence of the motor cab. Other than the last three lines to introduce a differential rate schedule, the "Regulation of Hacks" remained almost solely concerned with horse drawn vehicles. Motor cabs remain both a more costly investment for drivers, and a more expensive means of transportation for customers. Almost a decade after the introduction of the motorized taxi, City Council continued to issue horse-drawn hack licenses. According to the City Ordinance in 1919, Council had power to issue seventy hack licenses and eighty taxi licenses; however, the applications reflected a greater demand for the motor cab licenses. There were twenty one applications for traditional hack licenses and one hundred and sixty eight applications for motor cab licenses.

In late 1930s, the city had central dispatch brokers and cabs with taxi metres. Some of these offices were: "Chas. A. Pender Ltd., Halifax Taxi, Fraser Brothers Taxi, Casino Taxi, and a number of independent operators also. During the Second World War Halifax experimented with a cooperative taxi service; many of the difficulties experienced with the Wartime Taxi Association illustrate the larger problems of cooperation among drivers and between drivers and the regulators. During World War II the city established a central call office and attempted to bring all taxis under its direction. This Taxi Pool was intended to improve service. Customers could call the central office and order a taxi and the dispatcher would distribute the calls to drivers when they returned to the office or through call boxes located throughout the city. The difficulty of this system was the inability of the dispatcher to contact cars to service the calls. Although the dispatcher was receiving several calls taxis could not be contacted. A Taxi had to returning to the central call office or find a call box and contact the office after each call. This was not efficient for the drivers. They would drive past customers and often be sent to a call where people had given up waiting, thus wasting their time and resources, when during that time gasoline was rationed and tires and car parts were scarce.

Most of the ordinance governing hacks is the direct precursor to the later taxi ordinance. Sections regarding licensing, fees, applications, inspections, and class of vehicles are examples of regulations with corresponding sections in the later taxi ordinance. One interesting exception is section 32 of Ordinance 14 in 1914 which regulates the transport of dead bodies.

After the introduction of the taxi fare schedule, the voices of Halifax taxi drivers are conspicuously absent from city council chambers. Council created a twenty five dollar license fee for motor taxis in 1916 and although this was five times the cost of a hack license there is no record of resistance through formal Council channels. Equally, Council minutes of discussion of the number of licenses and application deadlines do not record any reaction from drivers. Unfortunately the Council minutes only record the driver activity that reaches chambers; it is, therefore, an incomplete and misleading source. Yet even the regulatory bodies which were more accessible to the taxi driver consistently failed to recognize the members of the industry they were regulating.

Despite the regulators' failure to acknowledge the drivers, decisions regarding taxi licensing and regulation did not go unnoticed by the drivers. For example, the particular timing of Council's decision to create an application deadline for taxi licenses had a noticeable effect. For some of the soldiers who returned home after World War I the newly created deadline complicated their attempts to obtain work. Although neither City Council nor the Hack and Truck Minute book make any mention of it, there were a number of requests for the deadline to be waived.

Beginning in 1932, Halifax taxi drivers begin to appear more frequently in Council minutes. Independent operators in cooperation with company owners submitted recommendations for taxi fare schedules. The practice at the time was for drivers to charge according to the fare schedule in the ordinance. They estimated distance according to a table in the ordinance which gave distances between the Grand Parade and numerous locations throughout the city.

In 1938, the city moved to change this practice. It proposed legislation forcing drivers to purchase taxi metres. The drivers were quick to respond. R. J. Flynn, representing the interests of small independent taxi operators, protested. He argued that the installation of metres would put smaller operators out of business, explaining to Council that people "accustomed to using taxis would hesitate to use same on account of the uncertainty of the price." Flynn met opposition. Leonard W. Fraser, Solicitor, "on behalf of a number of taxi owners and drivers," spoke in favour of the metres. Four years earlier in a letter addressed to the mayor, Fraser spoke on behalf of, "Chas. A. Pender Ltd., Halifax Taxi, Fraser Brothers Taxi, Casino Taxi, and a number of independent operators," indicating that he likely represented the interests of the larger companies in this matter as well. Fraser insisted that taxi drivers were underpaid, and the only way to ensure they could "obtain decent wages" would be the uniform rates assured by the installation of metres. It seems that the issue was divided between drivers associated with larger brokers and those who operated independently. However, the division may have been between those who owned their own cars and those who drove company cars. In any case there was clearly conflict between different groups of drivers, between the interests of drivers and company owners, and between the smaller operators and the regulators.

After some discussion, a motion to refer the issue to the Laws and Privileges Committee for further consideration was lost six votes to eight. Council then passed the original motion making the installation of taximetres required by ordinances with a vote of eleven to three. Once again Council quickly returned to its original recommendations; the concerns of drivers were entertained briefly but there is no indication that the Council desired to measure or follow the interests of the drivers.

Drivers were considerably more united and successful in 1941 when they protested an amendment requiring them to identify their cars as taxis. By submitting a petition signed by one hundred five "licensed taxi owners," the drivers persuaded Council to repeal the recommendation of the Safety Committee that drivers "shall cause to be painted, stencilled or otherwise placed on the rear of the body" of their vehicles the word "taxi" and the "number assigned to such vehicle by the Committee." Although the drivers' argument against the amendment is not documented in the minutes they may have been concerned about the cost. Vehicles used to transport passengers for hire often serve a short life. This amendment might have meant drivers would have to endure the cost of painting and stencilling every few years, and might affect the resale value of the car. Their vehicles were also used as private cars and many drivers would object to having a permanent sign affixed to their family vehicle. Drivers may also have objected to the idea of displaying an identification number on the vehicle. It is often considered alienating and impersonal to display, and be identified by a number.

This is the first evidence of successful collective action among Halifax taxi drivers. The petition represents a more unified protest than the testimony of individual drivers before Council. Although the petition was signed by a considerable number of drivers it was submitted to Council by Leonard Fraser, the solicitor who also represented several taxi brokers. This indicates that the drivers and the brokers were cooperating to challenge the regulators. It may also indicate that with the support of the brokers, and their lawyer, drivers had a stronger voice before Council. The success of the amendment repeal can likely be attributed to both the collective action of drivers and the support and cooperation of the brokers.

In the case of larger issues of industry regulation, cooperation among drivers and between drivers and brokers is often more difficult. During the Second World War Halifax experimented with a cooperative taxi service; many of the difficulties experienced with the Wartime Taxi Association illustrate the larger problems of cooperation among drivers and between drivers and the regulators. During World War II the city established a central call office and attempted to bring all taxis under its direction. This taxi Pool was intended to improve service. Customers could call the central office and order a taxi and the dispatcher would distribute the calls to drivers when they returned to the office or through call boxes located throughout the city. The difficulty of this system was the inability of the dispatcher to contact cars to service the calls. The shortage of taxis was of sufficient concern to municipal leaders that Aldermen would visit the central call office to observe the operation.

One alderman stated that the public was very much interested in the matter and that he and another alderman ... had visited the taxi Pool on Saturday night for two hours and watched the operation and to them it seemed to be unsatisfactory.

Although the dispatcher was receiving several calls taxis could not be contacted. Returning to the central call office or finding a call box and contacting the office after each call was not efficient for the drivers. They would drive past customers and often be sent to a call where people had given up waiting, thus wasting their time and resources. During the war gasoline was rationed and tires and car parts were scarce. Speaking before Council on the issue, Mr. Donohue, identified as a representative for the individual taxi operators, advised that each taxi man was given five gallons of gas for the day and used it to make the most money he could. Driver cooperation with the central office meant the sacrifice of earnings because of the inefficiencies of operating without direct contact with the office. Because of the scarcity of rubber and car parts it is likely that drivers were under additional stress to earn their money efficiently. Frustrated with the inefficiency of the taxi Pool, the Wartime Taxi Association voted to have the switchboard office discontinued. However, the members of the Association were clearly divided on the issue, sixteen voting to continue the switchboard and twenty- two voting against.

Representing the drivers and brokers opposed to the elimination of the taxi Pool was Leonard Fraser. Fraser admitted the taxi Pool was not working efficiently but argued that the Pool was at least a framework that could be improved upon. Clearly people on both sides of the argument agreed that the Pool was not working satisfactorily; however, there was considerable conflict between operating an efficient taxi service and operating an efficient taxi.

Although taxi companies and independent taxi operators had come together to work out of a central office it did not represent a cooperative initiative on their part because it had been dictated by the regulators. The taxi Pool was "forced upon the taxi operators and they could do nothing about it." Although members of the Wartime Taxi Association clearly had opinions on how it should best be operated, the authority to control the Pool rested with City Council and the Department of Transit Control. Despite the membership vote to discontinue the operation of the switchboard, City Council voted unanimously to have Transit Control deal with the matter, making desired improvements, including penalties to drivers who did not cooperate. The notion that cooperation could be enforced through penalties was shared by the administrators of the taxi Pool. One driver recalls Gordon Mitchell, president of the Wartime Taxi Association, threatening to cancel gasoline and tire permits in an attempt to coerce drivers to cooperate with the office. Mitchell and the regulators seemed driven to improve service through whatever means they could. They were clearly sensitive to the numerous complaints received from the public; however, considerably less sensitive to the issues of drivers efficiently obtaining adequate earnings. The issue of public transportation during war time is clearly more divisive than the issue of painting "taxi" on all vehicles. The Wartime Taxi Association embodies the conflicts between drivers and their office, drivers and their regulators, and drivers and their customers.

After the end of the Second World War, taxi drivers again operated out of different offices and plied their trade as before the taxi Pool; however, the business environment had changed considerably. During the heady days of the Wartime Taxi Association there were not enough taxis to meet the demand, after the war the opposite seemed true. In the post-war era taxi drivers witnessed many changes in the industry including new technology, increased regulation, fewer and larger taxi offices and, especially in recent years, a decline in the volume of business.

Although drivers have always had to work long hours to earn a living wage there is a significant contrast between wartime and postwar business. Compared with the bustling wartime port, post-war Halifax must have seemed particularly stark. Percy Clark, a retired driver, began driving taxi in 1934 and recalls a noticeable increase in business during World War II.

Earlier it wasn't so good. But later when there was a better rate in pay [fare schedule] you could make more, especially during the war ... you could have made a fortune.

However, the most lucrative wartime business was not transporting passengers, it was in supplying the numerous soldiers and sailors with liquor and women.

If you didn't bootleg, you didn't make any money. You would buy a bottle for $4.00 and sell it for $25 ... Not like the sailors of today, who go back to the ship with a pizza or fish and chips and a Coke - the sailors during the war wanted a bottle. I used to carry a roll of masking tape and tape the bottle to their legs; with bell-bottom trousers, no one would tell the difference.

The illegal trade in liquor and women was as much a part of driving a taxi as transporting passengers for hire and represented a considerable portion of the driver's income. The success of the driver was associated with his or her ability to supply customers with what they were looking for.

A cabbie as not a cabbie who could not get a man a woman ... I consider myself a professional taxi-man and it was my business to know where and what to find for my customers.

In the postwar era more liberal liquor laws and a peace-time port led to a dramatic decline in bootlegging. Drivers increasingly relied solely on the transport of passengers for their earnings, working harder for their money in a business that already demanded long hours. According to Clark,

You had to work long hours to make some money ... no eight hour days ... it was fifteen ... I worked ... house[s] and I worked hotels, everywhere I could get a dollar I was there.

In addition to the increased struggle to earn a living wage, drivers and brokers became further separated as the gap between labour and capital widened. The consolidation of taxi offices eliminated many of the smaller brokers and created larger, more powerful brokers. With fewer offices for drivers to work from, and the installation of broker-owned radio systems, drivers increasingly lost power and independence. As well, they were hemmed in even tighter with increased regulation.

The toll of the post-war changes was a decrease in the drivers' autonomy and independence. In response to these new challenges drivers increased their collective action and demonstrated an increasing community consciousness. Although the business continued to demand independence and competition, continued survival clearly began to demand cooperation among drivers.

During the 1950's, Halifax taxi drivers took an important step toward organization. In 1957 they formed the Halifax Taxi Association, the first recorded voluntary trade association. Although city council interpreted the drivers' aims as "raising the ethics of their calling," the drivers clearly had stronger purposes. The Association hired a solicitor and began lobbying for the limitation of taxi licenses, an issue dating from 1919, and along with rate schedules, one around which drivers continued to rally. In 1919 the Laws and Privileges Committee recommended eliminating from Ordinance 14 the limitation of the number of hack licenses which may be granted. The Amendment passed, but demands for the reinstatement of limitation appear in 1938 and 1946. During the next four decades the limitation issue passed from one association to another, and today is high on the agenda of the United Cab Drivers Association of Halifax.

Throughout the 1950's and 1960's the Taxi Association and "non-Association" drivers struggled against the municipal regulators, against their brokers, and against each other. Although drivers were often divided on the solution to problems within the industry, their united efforts to obtain better taxi rates and regulations alarmed the brokers. In an effort to maintain the upper hand brokers engaged legal counsel. In 1969, a solicitor for ten taxi companies reported that the companies opposed both the drivers' proposal for limitation and their taxi association:

The argument over limitation created divisions within the industry but neither side was able to force a definitive response from Council. Council repeatedly deferred the matter, sending it to sub-committees, the Safety Committee, and the City Solicitor for consideration and recommendations. But drivers were tenacious. They supported their Association's sustained pressure on Council for more than a decade. Ultimately they failed, but their efforts demonstrated unprecedented stamina, and established both the importance of a Taxi Association and the roadblocks it would face.

In March of 1974 a small number of Halifax drivers tried another tack. In an effort to improve their position in the industry and their autonomy at work, four driver-owners began a cooperative taxi company called Union Taxi. Through a system of preferred and common shares Union Taxi enabled drivers to own part of their own company. There were other advantages as well. The cooperative office was able to offer considerably lower taxi-stand rent. Most companies at the time charged between $25 and $30, but Union drivers paid only $18 per week. Although Union Taxi grew quickly at first, from ten drivers to forty in less than two years, the company only survived a few years. Interference by brokers may have been one reason. Brokers were known to attempt to intimidate drivers:

The brokers will tell a driver, `Alright, go down to Union, but don't ever expect to get a job with this company again. Where will you go when it folds in six months?'

Although the conflicts between brokers and drivers may have hindered the growth of Union Taxi, conflicts among drivers helped to push Union into decline. According to Union Taxi member Gordon Robb, "The guys started pulling out. There were a few things that happened." The conflicts between drivers at Union were echoes of those at other offices: disagreements over company policies and disputes over calls. A particular disagreement over a driver refusing a radio call:

One driver was sitting on a stand behind another. The first driver on the stand took a call, on the radio, and at the same time a guy got into his car and said `take me to the airport.' He picked up his mike and said `give that call to somebody else, I'm going to the airport.' The guy behind him a got a $.50 call when the airport pick-up should have been his.

While drivers came together for the benefit of lower office rent they were also divided by the continuous competition and pressure to make money. The economic pressure that created a demand for a cooperative office also created conflict within it.

At the same time as the Union Taxi cooperative experiment, many Halifax taxi drivers were also attempting to establish a union. The Halifax Taxi Union was unable to obtain union recognition in 1975 because the Labour Relations Board determined that taxi drivers were not employees and, therefore, ineligible to participate in a vote for unionization. However, the Taxi Union continued to lobby Council for limitation in 1976.

In addition to the efforts of the cooperative and the taxi union, individual drivers frequently petitioned City Council. They wanted hotel access, rate increases, and license limitation. With a steady flow of correspondence from both sides of the taxi industry, and after a flurry of seven submissions in just two months, Council responded by passing a motion to establish a Committee to review all relevant and appropriate matters concerning the taxi industry. The committee was empowered to "report back to Council with specific recommendations."

This was the opportunity for industry regulation that taxi drivers and brokers both believed was necessary. At a public meeting of the City's Taxi Review Committee on 5 August 1976, Committee Chair Alderman Terrence Sullivan formally recognized their concerns. He announced that the Taxi Committee had been established "as a result of the submissions made to Council regarding rate increases and limitation of taxis."

The establishment of the Taxi Committee brought drivers one step closer to representation on the regulatory body and signals the degree of unrest within the industry. During the 1970's Halifax taxi drivers were not solidly united and speaking with one voice; however, they were echoing one another and identifying issues that were common to all. At the first meeting of the Taxi Committee there were more grievances than the Committee had time to hear and another date had to be set to allow people time to address the committee.

Although efforts to unionize were foiled by provincial legislation, and attempts to operate cooperatives were unsuccessful, drivers succeeded in making the regulators more accessible. If fifteen years of petitioning from the Taxi Association only produced deferrals and delays, the creation of a Committee to study the "problems" in the industry came in response to increased pressure. The issues had not changed in twenty years but driver agitation and initiative had.

One year after its formation the Taxi Committee reported that the industry was experiencing problems and required a "responsible authority" to regulate or arbitrate disputes between the taxi drivers and the brokers. The Committee's recommendation to establish a permanent Taxi Commission represented only a partial victory for the drivers. The Commission was to consist of five voting members including one taxi driver, and one taxi owner. The taxi driver seat on the Commission represented a significant accomplishment, and provided a voice for drivers within the regulatory body. However, one seat to represent the interests of more than nine hundred drivers was clearly inadequate. The issue was further complicated because drivers were not united on issues of limitation and unionization. One vote on the Commission simply could not represent the interests of all drivers. Brokers were granted a much larger voice. Although there were considerably fewer taxi brokers than drivers, they received equal representation on the Commission. Despite the inequities, the establishment of a permanent Taxi Commission in the summer of 1978 meant a stronger voice for drivers within the governing body of the industry.

During the 1970's and 1980's taxi drivers attempted to assert greater influence over their work conditions by experimenting with cooperatives, association, and unions. They met with considerable resistance, and faced a number of changes in their industry.

During the 1970's the brokerage structure underwent considerable consolidation. Yellow Cab, established in the 1960's, bought out a number of its competitors and became one of the few large offices in the city. The number of Halifax taxi services listed in the City Directory declined dramatically from eighteen in 1969 to five in 1987. Although there were several small offices and independent operators which might not be listed, the directory indicates a trend toward fewer and larger offices. By the 1980's Casino, Yellow, and The Y Taxi were the dominant offices in the city. With fewer offices to choose from drivers become increasingly subject to the policies of their brokers. However, they also became increasingly more united, vocal, and militant.

Taxi Commission Minutes are littered with references to petitions. In the autumn of 1979 at least three petitions were being circulated by drivers wanting to advise the Commission on rate increases. The first of these to reach Council contained approximately one hundred forty signatures representing about thirteen per cent of the city's drivers. Seventy drivers, organized by taxi driver Vincent Burke, also invited commission chairman Gerald Blom to attend their own meeting and hear their grievances. This represents a significant increase in driver participation since the early days of fare schedules and Leo Sweet. Although there was "considerable dissension" among the drivers regarding what the rate increase should be they all demonstrated a strong preference for a rate increase. If drivers were not strongly united around one solution, they were increasingly united in identifying the problem.

More petitions were submitted in December 1983 and January 1984 when the issue of rate increases surfaced again. Drivers were divided. Among several proposals recommending new rate schedules, one was accompanied by a petition with one hundred forty six signatures, but there was also a petition representing the drivers opposed to a rate increase.

In 1986, three hundred drivers signed a petition protesting any rate increase at that time, despite increasing operating costs:

Which Said: "We are of the belief that if the Commission were to set a rate increase at this time, the public would use the taxi business [sic] as little as possible, thereby causing the taxi drivers to work longer than they do now and with no guarantee that the increase will offset the cost of operating a taxi in Halifax."

The drivers succeeded and the Commission passed a motion not to amend taxi rates in 1986.

The same year driver agitation reached an unprecedented high in a debate over the exclusive right of Yellow Cab to operate taxi stands at the majority of city hotels. Four hundred and seventy drivers protesting Yellow Cab's hotel monopoly signed a petition which they submitted to Council in November 1986. In retaliation Yellow Cab also circulated a petition, presumably among its own drivers where support for the monopoly would be the strongest.

The battle between Yellow Cab and the drivers continued into the summer of 1987. Although the Taxi Commission approved an information referendum on the issue the results only indicated industry opinion and were not binding. Drivers voted overwhelmingly in favour of open stands, with four hundred forty eight ballots for open stands, two hundred forty nine ballots against and forty three neutral ballots. Despite the large voter turn-out and the clear majority in favour of open stands, the referendum did not result in the opening of any taxi stands located on private property. Drivers threatened to blockade stands at the hotels:

It was said at the time: "There has been a five-man pilot committee elected from each taxi office and they're looking into the matter of blocking the hotels and the closed stands, like the CN station and the bus station ... they're talking to lawyers to see what is legal and what's not ... the blockages would be random, hitting different locations at unexpected times."

Although there is no evidence that these blockades materialized, drivers were clearly becoming more militant. Threats to blockage were serious, since many Halifax taxi drivers had already successfully united with Dartmouth and Halifax County drivers in a blockade at the Halifax International Airport to protest Yellow Cabs' monopoly of the airport stand. After the blockade the stand was opened. This incident demonstrates a significant degree of unity and an increase in militancy among Halifax's taxi drivers. More importantly it serves as an example of how despite unity of thought and action, drivers are denied their objective by forces beyond their control, in this case, because of property laws.

In addition to the large number of drivers signing petitions and participating in the 1986 referendum, drivers began attending the Commission meetings in larger numbers. Attendance at meetings discussing rate increases was often noticeable, usually between twenty and sixty drivers, however at one meeting regarding rate changes and exclusive bus lanes more than one hundred drivers attended.

Whether appearing individually to express their personal concerns or as representatives of a larger group, driver attendance at Commission meetings illustrates that drivers were willing to take time from work, and lose money, in order to participate in industry regulation. Attendance at meetings clearly indicates a greater commitment to industry reform than signing a petition or casting a ballot, both of which could be done quickly.

The issue which has generated the most pronounced and sustained protest among Halifax taxi drivers is the limitation of taxis servicing the city. Driver lobbying for limitation increased steadily over the last few decades and climbed dramatically during the 1980's and 1990's. Drivers flooded Council Chambers in November 1982 and August 1993 with attendance of two hundred and four hundred drivers respectively. They also submitted a petition containing more than five hundred names to the Commission in 1993 indicating their unity was stronger than ever. During the summer of 1993 and 1994 hundreds of drivers participated in demonstrations calling for limitation.

Drivers have become increasingly willing to make sacrifices in order to influence the regulators. Driving through the streets at noon hour and attending meetings for hours at night to lobby for change demonstrates considerable commitment, especially when drivers' earnings are considered. Before one protest, one unnamed driver worked three hours to earn only $3.95, but stopped work to demonstrate during the one hour when three hundred other cars would not be working. There also appears to be an increase in driver militancy surrounding the issue of limitation. The same driver was quoted in a local paper: "We cooperated with the police today but next week, who knows? We might not."

If driver cooperation and collective action around this issue is uncharacteristic, the response of regulators to drivers' activity is not. The Commission responded by holding special meetings and initiating more studies of the problem. Drivers won an ambiguous victory when the Commission voted to establish a one year moratorium on new taxi licenses in September 1993. Although the moratorium was supported by a City Council vote it was not the permanent taxi limitation drivers had been fighting for. Although the Taxi Commission is willing to listen to the concerns of drivers and study the issue at tedium, it is not responding to the wishes of an organized and vocal drivers' lobby. Reminiscent of the Board of Control and its response to Sweet, municipal regulators often remain reluctant to change policy regardless of driver participation.

In 1982 when drivers were protesting against rate increases a local new reporter wrote:

"Few industries are so divided nor draw as broad a range of opinion as the taxi industry with its 900 drivers. Therefore, it came as some surprise to many that nearly 140 drivers voted 95 per cent in favour of putting a freeze on any rate increase ... Indeed, it came as a surprise to many that 140 cab drivers even bothered to show up."

The significant turn-out of drivers and a more unified voice was not an anomaly, rather, it was an indication of a trend toward increased collective action among the city's taxi drivers. This cooperative spirit which has shown itself repeatedly in the history of the industry has never represented complete unity among drivers. It has, however, shown that drivers frequently recognize common problems and can often reach an agreement on a solution.

The ambiguous relationship between drivers and regulators is shown through the varying degrees of cooperation between the two. Although drivers have occasionally been able successfully to sway regulators on issues of rate increases and the painting of vehicles, most of the drivers' protests have resulted in only partial success. The creation of the Taxi Committee and establishment of a permanent Taxi Commission with driver representation both mark partial victories in the drivers' fight for more control over their industry. Hearings, studies, consultations, and license moratoriums on limitation represent the regulators' refusal to act decisively on drivers' demands. It is this combination of cooperation and disregard that characterizes the relationship between the regulators and the taxi drivers.

Ask almost any of the taxi drivers and you will hear that drivers are difficult to organize: " ... you get three cab drivers in a room you couldn't get two of them out of the three to agree on something." There is little doubt that taxi drivers are difficult to organize but this may be as much a result of the work environment as the drivers' character. The relationship between the drivers and the brokers, the competition among the drivers, and their estrangement from the product of their work all serve to alienate taxi drivers, inhibiting cohesion and collective action.

In the early 1990s the drivers formed an association called The United Cab Drivers Association I am told that their membership totalled 75% of the drivers at that time. It is hard to get any information about them as there was a legal confrontation between the executives and a city councillor and the brokers, with relation to written article by the executives, which caused the breakup of this organization. This happened in 1996 and I had just started working in the industry at that time.

Council meeting minutes of 1996 show the lack of interest by council to change any motion made by a councillor even if there was a petition and even when drivers or members of the taxi industry spoke against it at council meetings.

At a regular council meeting of April 1996 Councillor Sarto requested a staff report on the establishment of either a Regional Taxi Commission or one for zones. Why he called for this, is not said in the minutes, it appears that council wanted an advisory commission to look after the taxi industry items instead of having to deal with the drivers themselves.

In May 2 1996 Councillor Adams submitted a Motion on The composition of members to form a Taxi Commission

That the Composition would consist of the following members:

-Three Councillors

-Three Citizens at Large

-Four Brokers (owner or manager)

- 1 from Dartmouth 

- 1 from County

- 2 from Halifax

-Four Drivers

- 1 from Halifax

- 1 from UCDA (Halifax)

- 1 from Dartmouth

- 1 from County

-One limousine driver

the total number of members on the Commission would be 15 (fifteen)

By June the Composition of Taxi Commission became a Proposed By-law T-100 Respecting a Regional Taxi and Limousine Committee, Second Reading to be held on June 25, 1996.

At that meeting a letter from the United Cab Drivers Association of Halifax to the Mayor and Members of Council, regarding the appointment of a Regional Taxi and Limousine Committee and Hotel Standard Committee, was circulated.

Councillor Hetherington questioned if the proposed composition might be considered a conflict of interest. Mr. Anstey replied it is not unusual to have special interest groups on advisory committees.

Councillor Adams explained the By-law is an interim measure to provide representation for the drivers in the former municipalities of Halifax County and Dartmouth. Otherwise, they have no recourse to appeal a suspension. This Committee would be in place until a new Committee can be formed.

MOVED by Councillors Adams and Hetherington that By-law T-100, Respecting a Regional Taxi and Limousine Committee be given Second Reading.

Mayor Fitzgerald called for members from the public to speak regarding the proposed Bylaw.

Mr. Mike Briand, Taxi Driver

Mr. Mike Briand, Taxi Driver, spoke against the By-law stating the proposed Committee is too one-sided. He felt the Halifax Taxi Commission was controlled by the brokers and did not work for the benefit of the cab drivers. He also stated all three zones should be frozen to prevent a Halifax driver from picking up passengers in either the County or Dartmouth and vice versa. Mr. Briand also expressed concern about the lack of communication to the drivers about meetings. He suggested the cab drivers should be informed, in writing, of issues affecting them as they would like to be informed.

Councillor Adams stated meeting notices were posted in the offices and put over the two-way radio.

Mr. Leo Greenwood, President, Dartmouth Taxi Association

Mr. Greenwood stated he was accepted to serve on the Halifax Taxi Commission and will do so if the Commission remains in place. However, regarding the composition of the proposed Committee, Mr. Greenwood felt that Dartmouth had the best system with Councillors and three citizens-at-large comprising the Committee. Members of the taxi and limousine industry were not members of the Committee but were allowed to attend public meetings and have input, but the final decisions were made by the Committee. Mr. Greenwood stated he has no problem with a Dartmouth cab driver picking up a customer in Halifax who wants to return to Dartmouth using a Dartmouth cab, and he cannot understand why Halifax would have a problem with this. However, he agreed they should not be going to a different municipality picking up and dropping off passengers within that municipality.

In response to a question from Councillor Sarto, Mr. Greenwood stated he did not see any positive merits for the industry from the proposed composition of the Committee.

Mr. David Godsoe, Chairman, Limousine Association of Halifax and Halifax County

Mr. Godsoe stated he believes the Committee should be made up of citizens-at-large and members of Council. He also expressed concern about the lack of communication about meetings regarding taxi and limousine issues.

Mr. Darshan Virk, United Cab Drivers Association

Mr. Virk noted that the Dartmouth Taxi Commission had 5 members while Halifax had 13. He stated he had nothing but praise for how the taxi industry was handled in Dartmouth. One of the reasons for this was the composition of the taxi commission. Mr. Virk read from former City of Halifax minutes of September 30, 1993 when then Deputy Mayor Walter Fitzgerald stated the Halifax Taxi Commission was not functioning effectively and perhaps should be abolished. It was also stated at that meeting that the excessive size and composition of the Commission slows the decision making process considerably. Mr.Virk read from a petition signed by approximately 300 taxi drivers and owners stating they felt the Halifax Taxi Commission has failed to represent the taxi industry accurately and encouraging that it be dissolved and replaced with a commission consisting of nonindustry members. Mr. Virk also expressed concern with the lack of communication regarding meetings. In closing, Mr. Virk stated the Committee should consist of four Councillors and three citizens-at-large. He also stated meetings should not be held unless the industry is given advance notice.

Councillor Barnet asked Mr. Virk if he would support the deregulation of the taxi industry, to which Mr. Virk replied in the negative as this did not work in the United States.

Regarding notification of meetings, Councillor Adams clarified that two in camera meetings recently held regarding license limitation were for information purposes on his behalf as he was new to the Taxi Commission in November 1995. There were no decisions made at these meetings.

Mr. Bob Richards, Taxi Driver, Member of Halifax Taxi Commission

Mr. Richards spoke in favour of the By-law. He felt the Taxi Commission does a good job and is a great representation of the taxi industry in Halifax. Regarding notification of meetings, Mr. Richards stated the UCDA does not support the Commission and tells their membership to stay away from the meetings. He asked for Council’s support for the Taxi Commission as the HRM has to try to include representatives from all areas

Mr. John Bell, Owner, Celebrity Taxi

Mr. Bell stated he just found out about the Taxi Commission a couple of months ago. He asked Council to take time in setting up this committee and to get input from the industry. Mr. Bell stated he did not see why a company broker should be on the Commission as they are not regulated by the Commission, however, the people being regulated should be represented.

Rev. Wayne Campagna, Taxi and Limousine Driver

Rev. Campagna stated he was a member of the Halifax Taxi Commission, and it was an honour and privilege to serve on this Commission and give input. It was his thought the principle of the proposed By-law was to set up a Commission that will report to Council as an advisory board.

Mr. Peter Kelly, Taxi Driver

Mr. Kelly expressed concern with the lack of communication about meetings. In closing, Mr. Kelly stated that the Committee should consist of Councillors and citizens.

Mr. Bruce Chisholm, Taxi Driver

Mr. Chisholm expressed concern with UCDA speaking on behalf of all 750 drivers in the Region on the composition of the proposed Committee. He suggested the Committee should consist of eight taxi drivers (two from each area) with no brokers on the Committee. Mr. Chisholm praised the way the taxi industry was handled in Dartmouth.

Regarding concerns expressed with lack of advertisement of meetings, Councillor Adams stated he would like to initiate a monthly letter to be given to every driver in Halifax to tell them about scheduled meetings regarding the taxi industry.

>In closing, Mr. Chisholm stated the taxi drivers should have more say in what happens with the industry.

Brian Jardine, Sunshine Limousine

Mr. Jardine stated he would like to see the Committee made up of unbiased qualified people. He felt the limousine industry has not had much say to date in the rules brought in by the City of Halifax.

Independent Airport Taxi Driver

This speaker stated the taxi industry is not a trustworthy industry, therefore, there needs to be an unbiased impartial group looking after their interests.

At this point in time, Mr. Greenwood indicated a desire to speak for the second time. A vote was taken with the result of 10 against and 8 for. Therefore, Mr. Greenwood was not permitted to speak for a second time.

Mayor Fitzgerald called three times for any other speakers, with none coming forward.

Councillor Adams requested that Third Reading be scheduled for July 9, 1996 as he will be out of town on July 2, 1996. Council was in agreement with this request. In debate of the Motion, the setting of a time frame for this interim committee was discussed.

MOVED by Councillors Hetherington and Sarto and that the Motion be amended to set a time frame of the first week November 1996 for a new By-law establishing a new Commission to be before Council.

Mr. Anstey stated his concern with the amendment setting a definite life of the Committee is that if Council does not agree with the new By-law in November, there will be a void with no means to deal with appeals. He suggested that Council request a report instead of a new By-law by November 1996. In light of the comments made by the public this evening, discussion followed regarding setting a different committee composition at this time instead of waiting until November. Mr. Anstey stated it would be appropriate to respond to the public input and amend the proposed By-law.

Councillor Hetherington, with the consent of Councillor Sarto, withdrew his Amendment.

Discussion followed regarding the most appropriate composition.

MOVED by Councillors Blumenthal and Hetherington that the Motion be amended to change the composition of the Committee to consist of;

Three (3) Councillors, one each from the Eastern, Western and Central areas; and Four (4) Citizens-at-Large, two from Halifax County area, one from Dartmouth, and one from Halifax.

It was noted that there will need to be some other incidental changes in the By-law for issues such as a quorum. The properly worded By-law will be provided to Council for Third Reading on July 9, 1996.

Councillors Harvey and Adams expressed concern with this substantial change to the Bylaw not being readvertised.

AMENDED MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

Also at that meeting an Amendment to Section 43, Halifax Ordinance 116, the Taxi and Limousine Ordinance - was up for Second Reading

The Amendment, passed First Reading on June 11, 1996 and was now before Council for Second Reading. The proposed amendment to the Halifax City Ordinance would add a representative of a 24 hour taxi dispatch firm to the Hotel Standard Committee.

MOVED by Councillors Adams and Hetherington that Council give Second Reading to Amendment to Section 43, Halifax Ordinance 116, the Taxi and Limousine Ordinance.

Mayor Fitzgerald called for members of the public wishing to speak on this amendment.

Mr. Darshan Virk, United Cab Drivers Association

Mr. Virk spoke on the amendment stating there is already a broker on the Committee, that being Mr. Bob Richards. He suggested if there is another member to be added, it should be a UCDA member.

Councillor Adams replied the UCDA did not want the Hotel Standards Committee set up and submitted a petition stating so.

Mr. Mike Briand, Taxi Driver

Mr. Briand stated he felt there should not be a broker on the Hotel Standards Committee as it would cause too much of a conflict.

Mayor Fitzgerald called three times for any further speakers. No one came forward.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

Councillor Adams asked that Third Reading be given at this meeting.

MOVED by Councillors Adams and Hetherington that Council give Third Reading to the Amendment to Section 43, Halifax Ordinance 116, the Taxi and Limousine Ordinance.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

From The HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL MINUTES of July 9, 1996

11.1 Regional Taxi & Limousine Committee By-law T-100 - Third Reading

By-law T-100, Regional Taxi and Limousine Committee was before Council for Third Reading, Second Reading having been received on June 25, 1996.

Councillor Adams indicated he does not feel that this is the time to make the changes in the Committee structure.

MOVED by Councillor Adams and Hetherington that Council approve Third Reading of By-law T-100, Regional Taxi & Limousine Committee, going back to the version as advertised.

Mr. Anstey confirmed that the amendment to the composition as proposed by Councillor Adams in his motion was not a major amendment and can be voted on.

Councillor Cooper expressed concern that the motion on the floor was contrary to what had been passed at Second Reading.

Circulated with this item was:

-- A petition from Bruce Chisholm on behalf of licensed taxi drivers regarding the makeup of the new taxi commission

-- Correspondence from United Cab Drivers Association

Councillor Sarto indicated he was in agreement with a member of the industry being on the Committee.

Councillor Adams informed Council the present committee was on an interim basis until December 31, 1996, with a new commission being put in place at that time.

Earlier, a petition regarding this issue had been circulated and acknowledged.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED