In the 2025 Ottawa Police Service budget proposal, we were presented with Category 5: User Fees and Revenues, which clearly states that a portion of ASE revenues collected from 2026-2028 will go towards balancing the police budget.
At that time, it was not properly earmarked for traffic safety expenses, nor was it expensed from the City’s books over to OPS. It moves through a reserve fund and so doesn’t show up in the budget books. It’s there, but there’s no specific accounting. It’s not recorded against the expenses of the Road Safety Action Plan. It’s not specifically recorded in the Ottawa Police Service expenses against road safety programs.
According to the Auditor General: “[n]ot allocating net new revenues generated from new red light cameras installed after 2020 to the dedicated Road Safety Reserve Fund means that these funds will not be used exclusively for road safety initiatives. This can impact the level of public trust in the program as well as limit road safety outcomes that could be achieved through road safety initiatives funded by red light camera revenues.”
I said it at the time, and I’ll say it again: the public deserves clearer accounting. The opaqueness (however professionally typical) of a program that is as contentious as red-light and automatic speed enforcement is not appropriate. As we see from public reaction, I was right. It remains a critical role for a city councillor to exercise careful oversight of the City’s finances at budget time and raise any discrepancies that affect residents. It’s not simple work, and it’s not always politically popular or personally easy to speak out. But the budget is a series of choices, and it’s our job to examine those choices through the lens of our residents.
When you move money around and it's not appropriately accounted for it looks like a slush fund.
For this reason (among others), I voted against the 2025 police budget and the 2025 City budget.
When we assure the public that money collected from unsafe driver behaviours will go exclusively towards road safety improvements, I think that justification resonates with most people. When we start moving dollars around to balance other budgets, even in small amounts, it undermines the commitment we have made to residents and robs Peter to pay Paul.
City staff have agreed in the wake of the Auditor General’s findings that shifting these funds was not done transparently and they have committed to a public reckoning through the next budget cycle. I hope that’s not too little too late to restore trust. My staff and I spent significant time uncovering at least some of this late last year and raising it to Council’s attention, but I wonder what else we haven’t found. This Council was voted in to do better in terms of transparency and in rebuilding the relationship with residents. I am disappointed in the damage that has been done and how this opens us to the same criticisms made of the previous term of Council.
And I’m disappointed in how this will effect the public’s view of the red light camera and ASE program. Both are effective at making our roads safer – they have been proven to slow down cars and reduce red light running. They’re too important to lose.
Today, the Finance and Corporate Services Committee voted down Councillor Dudas’ motion to move away from social media platform X as a City communications tool (you can read the motion