IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF SECURITY CAMERAS IN TAXIS (RESOLUTION)

DATE DE MISE EN PLACE DES CAMÉRAS DE SÉCURITÉ DANS LES TAXIS (RÉSOLUTION)

ACS2008-CCS-CPS-0008 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen

That in accordance with Section 84(3) of By-law No. 2006 - 462, the rules of procedure be suspended to allow the addition of the following item to the agenda for consideration: Implementation Date of Security Cameras in Taxis

CARRIED

Ms. Susan Jones, Chief License Inspector, explained that this item was being brought to the committee’s attention today because concerns had come to their attention and more time was needed to consult with the privacy commissioner.

She had the opportunity to meet with the Privacy Commissioner’s Office in December 2007 and a verbal conversation took place regarding privacy concerns of the cameras but they had not finalized their document in writing. For this reason, the Department is requesting that the Committee approve the motion before them to extend the implementation date from March 1, 2008 to July 2, 2008. This would allow her the opportunity to meet with the industry to hear their concerns and as well consult with the Privacy Commissioner. This way when they do go forward, they will know that they will be in compliance with the applicable legislation.

At the same they are asking that the renewal period be extended as well to July 2 so that they do not inconvenience the industry and everything is done at one time.

Councillor Bédard commented that one of the issues that has been brought up by the taxi industry is the question of the protocol with regards to how staff will deal with the photos that will be generated as a result of these cameras. There is concern with regards to privacy issues and he believes that it is important to get this item resolved before the City of Ottawa moves forward with this implementation. The concerns raised are: how will the photos be used, who will view them and in what instances will they be used. He feels that it is important to talk to the Privacy Commissioner, but to also speak with the industry because they have specific concerns.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Marion Williams, started by saying that the Committee’s first priority is to the residents and taxpayers of Ottawa, what she considers the silent majority. Another priority is to protect the most vulnerable of people who live in the community. She stated that every day she sees taxi cabs pick up special needs children, the elderly and even our young intoxicated adults. She commented that every week she reads articles regarding incidents that occur in the community that involve the use of cameras to assist police officers and authorities and these lead to an understanding of the course of events that lead up to some tragedies. She gave an example where it was a taxicab camera in Toronto that assisted identifying an offender that killed a young shopper.

With regularity she also reads and hears about incidents involving taxicabs and accusations of inappropriate conduct by drivers and/or their customers. Cameras have become a best practice and a standard of expectation in many aspects of our lives. She also mentioned taped conversations of phone calls where businesses take note to ensure high standards of customer service and this statement is made by companies and organizations when you call them.

She stated that cameras are already being used within the City of Ottawa where cameras are located at the doors so that security knows who comes in and out of City property.

She stated that the purpose is not any different for this industry; cameras are warranted in the taxi industry and are commonplace in other cities. She asked the Committee not to be fooled by the other arguments being presented by the industry. She commented that they would agree on any front in order to stall the implementation.

It is her understanding with the courses she has taken on privacy, that the collection of data on cameras is not in violation of privacy but rather how the data may be used. She strongly suggested that they move forward with the March 1, 2008 implementation and that cameras be installed without extension.

On the matter of transparency, she stated that she was disappointed and upset that this discussion was occurring today, as it was not on the agenda.

Councillor Deans then inquired from staff, giving them an opportunity to explain why this issue was placed on the agenda today without adequate notice to the public.

Ms. Jones began by apologizing and recognized the need to advertise given the importance of this issue, however, unfortunately it had come to their attention only very recently and following discussions with the Legal Department who advised that they should consult with the Privacy Commissioner and ensure that they have their support before they move forward. As well, they were made aware that there was not another Committee meeting until March, and knowing that the By-law stated installation of cameras by March 1, 2008, they were required to place this item on the agenda immediately.

Councillor Deans apologized as well, explaining that the second meeting that normally would be carried out in February where this issue may have been dealt with and advertised was cancelled at the start of the year. Therefore, because of the time sensitive nature, the decision was just taken yesterday to put it on this agenda. She stated that normally the City would ensure that something of this importance would go through the advertising process. There was no ill intent, it just became clear that this was the only opportunity to deal with the issue before going to Council where the public would have had no say or debate. Councillor Deans apologized to Ms. Williams stating that she should have contacted her and said that they would try not to repeat this again.

Marc-André Way, stated with regards to the motion, they feel that the by-law should not be delayed, but rather suspended until a proper form is put together and discussions are had with the industry and the drivers in order for everyone to properly understand the specifications required and why they are required. He commented that there was a need to understand, review and establish a proper protocol so that drivers understand how the images would be used. They would like to have meaningful discussion on all options pertaining to the security of the passengers and the drivers. Cameras are one aspect of the security issue and he was sure that there are others that could be discussed and implemented at the same time.

He stated that the meter check and the renewal process should not be delayed; it should go through as per the present by-law in April. The discussions should take place either during this time or afterwards, and he ensured that the industry, once the discussions have occurred and a by-law is reworked, that they will follow through and have the equipment installed if necessary.

Councillor Deans noted to the delegate that Councillor Bédard has put a resolution on the table, which asks for a protocol to be prepared before the implementation date.

Hanif Patni, President & CEO, Coventry Connections, stated they were not present to attack staff or Councillors or suggesting that the City of Ottawa had done the implementation incorrectly but that over the last couple of years a number of changes had taken place in the taxi industry. He stated that in the last round of by-law changes 34 changes were made. He commented that when that when that number of changes are made, especially in this industry, there is bound to be misjudgements and errors made. It is his belief that with so many changes being made all at once, that it was a missed error on the part of the City not to address the privacy concerns. He is very grateful for the motion and is glad that it is being done.

He also wanted to stress that with the issue of the camera, there are other problems that they want addressed while there is time to talk. In particular, the dissemination of information captured from the camera is most powerful when it is in black and white format and that the cameras do not need to be in colour. He believes that the specifications for the cameras are not correct and a discussion has to be had in an open forum.

He also raised the issue of the surcharge, which was used to collect money for camera installation. This was an amount collected by the drivers yet the by-law today is asking the plate owner to pay for these cameras. He stated that they as the plate owner could not go to their drivers and now collect the money. Details on this issue need to be worked out.

He urged the Committee not to put a deadline on this as all parties need to have a proper discussion with the privacy commissioner, councillors, staff, unions, the drivers and their customers and come up with a resolution that is appropriate.

Councillor Bédard stated that it was his understanding that the cameras had already been ordered and the issue was settled through a public tender.

Mr. Patni responded stating that this was never completely clear to him but believed that even if one supplier had been selected, there are possibilities of downgrading the camera specifications and changing the cameras.

Councillor Bédard inquired from staff what was the status of the cameras and if a tender had been issued.

Ms. Jones concurred and stated that initially they had done a request for information and that two companies had come forward and they were invited to do a demonstration on their product. One company appeared before the Committee on July 10, 2006, to demonstrate exactly what the camera could do. Following this, they had surveyed other Canadian Municipalities to determine what were being used and other technical requirements. A Request for Proposal was then issued and she believes that 15 companies had picked up the request and approximately 6 companies submitted bids.

Ms. Jones also cleared up another piece of misinformation regarding colour cameras and explained that are actually black and white as they recognize that these are better images. They have gone out and done the full consultation on the best camera available and ultimately it is to protect the drivers and the customers; they want to ensure that the product works.

Councillor Bédard inquired further on the issue of the surcharge and the fact that is was collected by the drivers and not passed on to the plate owners who are responsible for camera installation.

Ms. Jones explained using the following analogy: if you have a landlord that rents to a tenant and if the landlord is responsible for paying for cable and the price goes up, the landlord will then negotiate a new lease. She stated that there are plate owners who have gained significantly since amalgamation and the fact that council approved the one zone concept. Plate values in the City have not only doubled, but in some instances they have tripled depending on the former municipality. She further stated that they have had two and a half years notice of this by-law and it was up to the plate owners to negotiate a new lease with their drivers and recover those fees.

Councillor Bédard commented however that at that time the cost was estimated at $1,200 for camera and installation.

Ms. Jones explained that this was a quote provided by a company at that time when the standards for the cameras may have been different. She commented that the City of Toronto has had cameras in their vehicles for approximately 5 years and they were around $700 at that time but they quickly realized that they were not providing the security needs required. They have since changed the specifications and a camera in Toronto is approximately $1,200 basically what was stated for the City of Ottawa.

Ms. Jones also added for the Committee’s interest, that Toronto did not apply a surcharge, it was automatically expected that the owners would pay for the camera and installation.

In response to Councillor Bédard question on the installation and orders, Ms. Jones reported that the cameras are sitting in the installation shops as we speak as the expectation was for a March 1, 2008 implementation. She informed the committee that the City negotiated with installers and has identified 2 installers at this point and are looking for others.

In response to Councillor Qadri comments of being aware of this issue for some time, Mr. Patni confirmed that they were aware but stated that there were 3 mistakes made by the City. They have been consistent with this fact and have always said that 3 issues had not been addressed adequately. These issues are now being discussed but at this late date.

Councillor Qadri commented again that the industry has known about this for more than 2 years and why is it being discussed now.

Mr. Patni stated again they have been consistent in their opposition since the beginning on certain aspects and that this was not new.

Councillor Qadri stated again that from day one, the drivers and plate owners knew of the surcharge and therefore this should not be an issue. Mr. Patni responded stating that the manner in which the surcharge was applied was totally inappropriate for these cameras. He will continue to state this even though the City may not necessarily agree with his views. He commented that if the City wanted to collect the money for the cameras, they should have applied a surcharge to the licensing fee which they could have collected every month and passed on to a trust account which could have easily paid for these cameras rather than a lump sum amount at time of installation.

Councillor Qadri stated again that the onus for collecting and putting away the surcharge was the responsibility of the driver and plate owner.

In response to Councillor Feltmate question on whether the surcharge was a decision made by Council, Ms. Jones replied that it was a recommendation from staff after extensive public consultation. Councillor Feltmate commented stating that she feels that these are business people and should have known how to put aside the surcharge monies.

Mohamad Alsadi, representative of the union (CAW), wanted to clarify that they appreciate the intention to try to find useful measures that will deal with the issue of driver and passenger safety. His understanding for this issue now was to give staff the chance to go and meet with the Privacy Commissioner and get some input on the issue of the camera.

He referred to a document from the union, which he distributed to the Committee members. A copy of this document is held on file with the City Clerk’s office. He referenced a meeting of the Committee on July 5, 2007 where the issue of the camera was discussed and a motion made regarding this issue. He stated that a Councillor asked whether the recommendations to install cameras had been vetted through the Privacy Act and Ms. Jones advised that they were working with Legal on this matter and hopefully report back by the next Council meeting. The next council meeting was July 11, 2007 and this did not happen.

He commented that the by-law was passed in 2005 and he wanted to make it very clear that the by-law on the camera was passed before the inquest for Sara McCarthy and before the incident itself. He went on to further comment that he believes there is a major issue on whether or not this by-law was done in the proper way.

He further referenced his document on privacy issues and how the images that are downloaded from the cameras will be used. He commented that Commissions in British Columbia and Manitoba dealt with the issue very differently and the City by-law he considers very sloppy in this regard.

He went on to say that the City had over stepped its authority by making purchases on behalf of the drivers and plate owners. He also had concerns with comments made by staff regarding the cost of the cameras. In the minutes from the September 8, 2005, Ms. Jones told the committee in response to Chair Little that the cost of the camera would be $700 to $1000. However, comments by Ms. Jones’ in the Ottawa Sun was that the drivers were told from the beginning that the camera was going to cost about $1500.

Yusef Al Mezel, President of the CAW Local 1688, agreed with his colleagues that they need the Privacy Commissioner’s guidance and concurred that the City had failed to deal with this issue and provide the industry and the public with the information on who would be using these images and in what types of instances these images will be downloaded. It is not only the drivers getting into the cars; it is our families as well.

He reminded staff that when they met with them at Centerpointe to deal with the changes in 2005, they were told between $300-$500, and were informed of the specifications of the camera and that the City was going to provide the cameras. It was only two months ago that they were informed of the change in the cost. This is why they are now complaining about the cost. It was thought that the City would shop around for the camera, seeking out the best deal possible in the market. They had found out that the City of Ottawa signed a contract and are now telling them that they have to go deal with a specific contractor otherwise they will be penalized.

He commented that they should not take responsibility for a deal and costs the City incurred for them.

Mr. Mezel stated that are not opposed to cameras, but they would like the City to come and talk to them so that they can discuss how this is going to be paid for, how much it will cost, and how they can get the best camera for the best price. As well, discuss who will be looking at these images and when they will actually be looked at and used.

By having these discussions he believe that they could find solutions for these issues and find that they as an industry supports the City in their efforts to install these cameras. However since the City has failed to do this, they have reached the point where they are not going to install the cameras until they understand and agree on all of these issues.

In closing he stated that they should keep everything as per normal for July with regards to the meter checks, inspections, and the renewal for the licenses. As for the cameras however, suspend the by-law, sit down and discuss the issues and come up with solutions that all can agree on. If this can be done, he believes that in the end they will agree with the City.

In response to some of the comments made by the delegations, Mr. S. Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services wanted to clarify some the points. He explained that there were some common themes and there was incredible resistance on some issues raised today. He stated that the taxi industry is probably the most consulted stakeholder group that they have in the City compared to almost any other group that the City deals with. There was extensive consultation leading up to this by-law and there was a provision for the industry to collect fees. He commented that regardless of what has happened to the surcharge monies or how they plan to pay for the cameras and installation, the industry had an opportunity that other large cities did not have.

He stated that City Council is the regulator of the industry and that as the regulator it has a responsibility to regulate in the interest of public safety. The inquest may not have made a recommendation regarding the cameras, but it certainly was very interested in the notion of cameras. The McCarthy inquest did not recommend the cameras because they knew council had already taken a proactive action to pass the by-law.

He emphasized that the by-law has been in place for 2 ½ years and therefore an incredible amount of lead-time to deal with this issue.

In closing Mr. Kanellakos stated his final point that as the fourth largest city in Canada, he believes that it is a shame that cameras are not yet installed since all other cities that we compare ourselves with have cameras installed and they work. He commented that having worked with the police for over 15 years, he has a bit of an understanding of what happens to grainy photos that you see in the papers where you cannot identify any victims or what actually happened because the camera was of poor quality and therefore feels it very necessary to have good specifications. The issue today is to ensure that the City gets it right in regards to privacy matters. The City felt that the industry had raised concerns about the Privacy Commissioner and City wants to be proactive and ensure that they have the Privacy Commissioner signing off on the protocol to ensure that all of the issues that have been raised are in fact dealt with in a systematic way and everyone understands the rules before the cameras go in.

He stated that it was unfortunate that another common theme was presenting itself, resistance again, but the regulator has a job to do and he believes that they are being very reasonable now in terms of delaying this and ensuring that everyone understands the rules.

Moved By Councillor S. Qadri

That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council permit the introduction of, and approve the following:

1. That the implementation date provided in Section 103(3) of By-law No. 2005-481 pertaining to security cameras in taxis as required in Section 37 of the By-law be extended to July 2^nd 2008; and

2. Approve that the expiry date provided in Schedule “C” of By-law 2005-481 be amended to July 2^nd in 2008 only, for the purposes of:

a) the renewal of standard taxi driver licenses as provided in Section 9 (1) and the grace period provided in Section 11 (1) of the By-law;

b) the renewal of accessible taxi cab driver licenses as provided in Section 13 of the By-law;

c) the renewal of standard taxi plate holder licenses as provided in Section 16 (1) and the grace period provided in Section 17 (1) of the By-law;

d) the renewal of accessible taxi plate holder licenses as provided in Section 19 of the By-law; and

e) the renewal of taxicab broker licenses as provided in Section 23 (1) of the By-law and the grace period provided in Section 24 (1) of the By-law.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor G. Bedard

Be it resolved that after discussion with the Taxi Industry and consultation with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, that staff prepare before the implementation date an Access and Privacy Protocol related to the operation of the security cameras in taxis to ensure that access and privacy concerns are addressed, as required in applicable legislation.

CARRIED