Highway Safety Staffing Bill Expands Enforcement

Summary#

Bill 49, the Northern Highway 11 and 17 Safety Act, 2025, would amend Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act and Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Its stated aim is northern highway safety; the bill does not guarantee a safety outcome.

  • The Minister of Transportation must ensure scales and inspection sites on Highway 11 north of North Bay and on Highway 17 are staffed daily for at least 12 hours.
  • The Ontario government must ensure the OPP has enough staff for traffic enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act. This duty does not name a specific location.
  • For a commercial truck driver education certificate that is required by regulation, the driver must be tested by a Ministry-certified examiner, who must indicate the driver should be certified; the Ministry must issue the certificate under the regulations.
  • The Ministry of Transportation must manage winter maintenance on Highway 11 north of North Bay and on Highway 17. It may work with contractors and providers.
  • The bill would take effect on Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

  • People driving these highways: The bill requires daily staffing at scales and inspection sites, but does not set inspection hours beyond the minimum, or promise that every site will be open to the public for those hours.
  • Commercial truck driver education certificate applicants: The added rule makes a Ministry-certified examiner’s test and recommendation conditions for issuing a certificate prescribed by regulation. The bill’s added wording does not itself make that certificate a direct condition of getting a driver’s licence; how it connects to licensing depends on other rules.
  • The Ministry and OPP: The Ministry must manage winter maintenance on the named highways, and the Ontario government must ensure sufficient OPP staffing for enforcement of the Act.
  • Contractors and service providers: The Ministry may work with them on winter maintenance, but the bill does not require it to do so.
  • The public: The bill does not directly change traffic rules, taxes, fees or fines.

Money#

The bill requires staffing and Ministry management, but the supplied material gives no cost estimate.

  • More staffing or winter-maintenance work may require resources, but the bill gives no figures for staff, contracts or other costs.
  • The bill does not set out a specific appropriation, fee, fine or savings.

What is unclear#

  • The current versions of the two Acts and related regulations were not supplied, so it is not possible to verify what rules already apply or how the bill would overlap with them.
  • The bill does not define “sufficiently staffed” for OPP enforcement or set a staffing number or service standard.
  • The bill refers to regulations for the certificate and examiner rules, but those rules were not supplied. The added text does not explain how the certificate requirement relates to licensing.
  • It is not clear what winter-maintenance standards or service levels the Ministry must meet, or exactly which sites and boundaries are covered by “north of North Bay.”

Case for#

  • A daily minimum staffing requirement could make scales and inspection sites more consistently available on the named highways.
  • Requiring the government to ensure sufficient OPP staffing could support enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act.
  • Having the Ministry manage winter maintenance could make responsibility for the named highways clearer, while still allowing it to work with contractors.
  • Requiring a Ministry-certified examiner to test certificate applicants adds a stated certification check.

Case against#

  • The bill does not define how much OPP staffing is “sufficient,” leaving a key requirement without a measurable level in the bill.
  • It does not set winter-maintenance standards or say how the public could assess whether the Ministry is meeting them.
  • Staffing and maintenance requirements may have costs, but the bill provides no estimate or funding details.
  • The certificate rule depends on regulations not supplied here, and the bill does not explain how the new test requirement fits with existing licensing rules.

Votes

Second Reading of Bill 49

For (39%)
Against (61%)