All riders deserve one safety standard: Herman
“Why would Halifax citizens be asked to accept less?”
Photo: Casino Taxi
On January 27, Halifax Council will debate a proposal requiring Uber and other ride-hailing drivers to have the same record checks that Taxi drivers already have. These background checks would then be filed with Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM).
Although applying the same safety standard to all drivers carrying passengers for money appears to make common sense, recent media interviews seem to imply this action will trigger significant harms to the city’s ground transportation service including fewer drivers and more expensive fares.
Brian Herman is president of Casino Taxi, which has operated in Halifax since 1928 and currently has about 350 cars in service. Herman listened to recent interviews, including one with spokesperson Jay Goldberg on the CBC and another involving Halifax Councillors Patty Cuttell and John Young.
“A lot of what is being said is not just inaccurate, but very easily, demonstrably inaccurate,” Herman told Taxi News.
“Submitting documents that are already obtained does not constitute
–Brian Herman, casino taxi
excessive red tape.”
“I am surprised to hear claims being repeated which are misleading or simply not true. Councillors who are scheduled to debate this issue on January 27th need to make their decision based on true facts. But what I consider even more important is that Halifax should be doing everything it can possibly do to ensure the safety of the riding public: that is the elected officials’ first responsibility.
“Whether a ridehail driver does not want to pay a $235 fee, or is subject to what the Mayor calls ‘red tape’ is really not the point. The point is that we have a safety standard for Taxi and limousine drivers, and every person driving passengers for money in Halifax should be willing to meet the same safety standard. Our citizens deserve no less.”
In an effort to correct some of the misinformation being shared, Herman provided Taxi News with the following analysis.
“It’s not complete, and possibly not perfectly worded, but I’ve tried to highlight the major issues from a practical industry perspective,” Herman explains. “These are the elements which matter to passengers and taxpayers.”
Claim 1: Halifax has some of the most stringent rideshare regulations in Canada
This claim is demonstrably inaccurate. Other cities, such as Regina and Saskatoon, require ridehail companies to meet the same standards Taxi companies must meet.
Section 43 of Halifax’s By-law T1000 sets out the requirements for TNC/Rideshare Drivers. In practice, HRM imposes minimal direct regulation on TNC drivers. The Municipality does not:
- Restrict the number of ridehail drivers, operating zones, or hours
- Impose vehicle age or specification requirements
- Require commercial insurance as they do with taxis
The only requirements respecting TNC/Ridehail drivers currently imposed by HRM are that a ridehail driver must:
Hold a valid Nova Scotia driver’s licence
- Have at least three years of driving experience with a Class 5 licence
- This is appears to be an Uber standard nationwide, not a Halifax-specific or elevated requirement
- Provide to the TNC original results of:
- Criminal Record Check
- Vulnerable Sector Check
- Child Abuse Registry Check
- Nova Scotia Driver Abstract
- Importantly, these checks are currently being required by Uber and other TNCs. HRM does not receive or verify them and must rely entirely on the compliance process of a large US based technology company, one who has a vested interest in getting as many drivers on the road as possible in order to dominate the market.
Display a company-issued vehicle decal
- Even this basic identification requirement is inconsistently followed and weakly enforced. Consider how many Uber or Lyft decals have you seen on vehicles while out and about in Halifax. It’s not overly difficult to spot TNC/Ridehail drivers, they are generally the ones being driven with an adult passenger in the back, with no-one in the front passenger seat. For law enforcement, this is currently the only way to identify the vehicles from the road without clearly posted decals, as required by law.
Furthermore, under the Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act, anyone transporting passengers for hire is required to hold a Class 4 driver’s licence. In 2020, when the Province sought to facilitate Uber’s entry into Nova Scotia, it significantly reduced the barriers to obtaining a Class 4 licence by removing both the written and road tests which had been required for many decades previously.
At present, a restricted Class 4 licence requires only that an applicant:
- Be at least 18 years old
- Have one year of Class 5 driving experience
- Provide medical and vision clearance
- Not be subject to newly-licensed restrictions
These are incredibly modest requirements by any reasonable public-safety standard, and in no-way should be classified as arduous or overreaching as they are being characterized.
Claim 2: Licensing TNC/Ridehail drivers would be overly burdensome and cost prohibitive
This claim mischaracterizes what the proposed changes actually require.
These background checks cited as “burdensome” are already mandatory for ridehail drivers today. The only substantive change is that these documents would also be submitted to HRM, rather than being held exclusively by the TNC. Submitting documents that are already obtained does not constitute excessive red tape. Nor should the avoidance of minimal administrative effort override public safety or Government oversight in a sector transporting vulnerable members of the public.
Claim 3: Municipal oversight does not improve safety because the checks are “redundant”
These checks are not redundant; they are independent verification.
In reality, municipal oversight:
- Replaces a “trust us” compliance model with accountable public verification
- Standardizes requirements across platforms. – Just because one or two platforms may be trustworthy, does not mean that all current or future platforms should be considered trustworthy.
- Reduces risks associated with impersonation, account sharing, and unauthorized drivers
- Enables real-time confirmation of who is driving, in what vehicle, and under what authority during time-critical incidents
- Does not allow TNC companies to hide behind privacy when it is determined an audit of drivers should be completed.
A public regulator should not rely solely on large US based technology companies to self-police access to public roadways and passengers.
Claim 4: These changes will cause fares to increase
The cost of background checks is borne by the driver, not the TNC. It is incredibly unlikely that the TNC would reimburse drivers for these additional costs, and therefore have any real justification for increasing fares as a result. Any fare increases would therefore be attributable to Surge Pricing, a platform-controlled pricing mechanism, resulting from reduced driver supply — a variable entirely controlled by the rideshare companies themselves.
It is highly implausible that submitting already-required documents to a municipal regulator would meaningfully deter drivers. If it does, that speaks more to the economic viability of operating on a TNC platform than to the reasonableness of the Municipality’s requirements. Keep in mind, these “increased costs” being touted as insurmountable barriers by the TNC companies are $235.00 every two years. Better put, is it worth $9.79 per month to ensure your job holds up to public scrutiny?
In Conclusion
The proposed amendments to By-law T1000 do not impose excessive regulation. They introduce basic transparency, verification, and public accountability into a sector that currently operates with minimal municipal oversight, despite providing the same essential service as licensed taxis.
Public safety, fairness, and regulatory consistency should not be sacrificed to preserve a business model built on regulatory asymmetry.
