Doug Ford’s labelling speed cameras a “cash grab” is an example of a tactic the political right has developed to a high art in recent years: renaming issues in ways that build support for conservative positions. If renaming is effective, they may even shut off debate. Besides “cash grab” some examples that come to mind are “war on the car,” “death tax,” “right to life,” and “right to work.”

“War on the car” was Rob Ford’s attack phrase for anything that might diminish drivers’ privileges. “Death tax” was the term US conservatives used to kill estate taxes. (Canada has no estate tax, but the deemed realization of capital gains at death is a functional equivalent.) “Right to life” means anti-abortion and “right to work” anti-union.

Driving as a Privilege

Though Doug Ford wants to use “cash grab” to shut down debate, I want to stimulate debate by asking some questions. Is automatic speed enforcement at schools and community safety zones a “cash grab”? Are red-light cameras a “cash grab”? Doug Ford has recently admitted that he has no problem with the latter. Are speed traps a “cash grab”? Is police enforcement of stop signs a “cash grab”?

I’ll digress to personal experience here. Two years ago, I, or more precisely the car I drive, was ticketed by a red-light camera for leaving a busy intersection in downtown Toronto after the light had turned red. The photo accompanying the ticket showed a large truck making a left turn ahead of my car. The documentation also showed how long it took my car to pass through the intersection. I told the City that I wanted to contest the ticket and was prepared to argue in court that the truck made it hard to see the traffic lights and that, based on the measure of time in the intersection, my car was not travelling very quickly. The City ultimately withdrew the charge without a hearing. Perhaps their staff looked at the ticket and anticipated my arguments. I support red-light cameras in general and respect them when I see them. But in this case, there were extenuating circumstances and indeed the red-light camera evidence highlighted them.

Every driver has a favourite speed trap. Mine is on the southbound lanes of the Bayview bridge. The police park in the parking lot at the Toronto French School, at the south end of the bridge, and it is impossible to see them. I always observe the 50 km/hr speed limit there. If you drive there, you should too.

Are fines for violations of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) or municipal by-laws, whether enforcement is automated or in-person, a “cash grab”? I’m old enough to remember a quaint saying that predates the Ford brothers. A friend who was chief of staff to the Minister of Transport in the Rae Government told me that the Ministry’s philosophy was that driving was a privilege, not a right. This philosophy emphasizes safety and justifies many ministry practices: driver testing, enforcement of the HTA by fines and demerit points, and fees and taxes for drivers. The Ford Government has given up on the third and it’s no longer clear where they stand on the first two.

Chump Change

It turns out that the City of Toronto’s “cash grab” isn’t really grabbing a lot of cash. In 2024 the speed camera program issued over 500,000 tickets at an average fine of $75, to bring in $40,000,000. Chat GPT estimates that in 2023 speed cameras and red-light cameras brought in $68 million in revenue, with operating costs of $16 million, for a net of approximately $50,000,000. This was only .3 percent of the City’s operating budget of $16 billion. But these involuntary contributions from violators of municipal bylaws provide a small measure of relief for the general taxpayer.

I was also curious about whether Toronto’s vacant homes tax can be considered a “cash grab.” It has increased from 1 percent of current assessed value to 3 percent, and it is estimated that it will bring in $100,000,000 this year. That is a reasonable amount of money, but still only .6 percent of the City’s operating budget. The tax is intended to discourage people who own Toronto real estate as an investment from leaving their investment vacant, and thus to increase the supply of available housing. In Toronto’s expensive housing market and given the proclivity of people overseas to invest in Toronto real estate this seems like a reasonable objective. I will also add personal experience here. Two houses on my block are vacant. One, a corner house, has been vacant for a decade and another, which was recently a rental before becoming vacant, has just gone on the market. I don’t like to see vacant homes on my block or in my neighbourhood, do you?

The taxes that can be considered “cash grabs” are those that bring in a lot of money, such as personal and corporate income tax and HST. Their purpose is to fund the basic functions of the state, such as health care, education, policing, national defence, and the social safety net. Is that a problem?

I’ll conclude with the point I have been trying to establish by asking questions and providing examples (a process that reminds me of my days in the classroom). Fines, fees, or taxes designed to penalize or discourage anti-social behaviour bring in a miniscule portion of the government’s total revenue. And, if they are well-designed and accompanied by an appropriate marketing program, they will bring in less money as anti-social behaviour happens less frequently. If this is what Doug Ford means by a “cash grab,” I’m all for it. (Finally, here’s a link to an op-ed by a former Toronto police officer who reaches the same conclusion I do.)

Personal Note: Excuses, Excuses

I missed posting last week and blame it on three things: the Jewish New Year, the Toronto Blue Jays successful drive to make the playoffs, and a medical issue. This week I will be observing Yom Kippur. I’m a baseball fan of long standing and will continue to watch the Jays in the post-season. Finally, I will discuss the medical issue in an upcoming post.