Ontario’s provincial government is moving to abolish municipal Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) cameras—a decision that has sharply divided public opinion. Premier Doug Ford justifies the ban as an essential step toward affordability, flatly labeling the cameras a municipal “cash grab” that unfairly targets drivers. This central argument is supported by the vast revenues generated: Toronto’s gross fines exceeded $45 million in 2025, while Ottawa and Brampton projected annual revenues in the tens of millions. Critics point to these massive figures and the fact that one Toronto camera issued over 66,000 tickets as proof that the systems exist for profit, not to genuinely curb speeding. They argue the fines are essentially an added tax burden on motorists for often minor infractions. One can just go online and visit a number of forums where people have complained about getting tickets when driving 2 or 3 kms over the limit. Does this actually make streets safer?
However, this policy is facing powerful resistance from a coalition of mayors, public health experts, and police associations. These opponents argue the ban is a reckless decision that undermines public safety, particularly in vulnerable school zones. They cite compelling data, such as a SickKids-TMU study that found a 45 per cent reduction in speeding where the cameras were used, and insist the cameras are a cost-effective alternative to relying on police patrol. They further counter the “cash grab” narrative by asserting that net revenue is legitimately reinvested into local road safety programs.Ultimately, this controversy presents a classic dilemma: Is the government prioritizing a popular, cost-cutting measure for drivers over a technology proven to save lives? The effectiveness and speed of deployment of the new, physically-based safety fund will soon determine whether this policy pivot was the right call to reduce the cost of living or a gamble with the public’s well-being.
