Editor's note: This article originally appeared on The Trillium, a Village Media website devoted exclusively to covering provincial politics at Queen’s Park.
The Ford government has amended its bike lane bill to block lawsuits that could otherwise arise should cyclists be injured or killed after protected lanes are removed.
Progressive Conservative MPPs passed an amendment to Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, that appears to offer the provincial government, municipalities, and contractors who work on bike lane removals under the legislation protection from civil liability.
PC members of the legislative committee studying the bill passed the amendment Thursday afternoon over objections from opposition MPPs.
The amendment states there can be no lawsuits against the province and cabinet due to bike lane removals that the bill would prompt.
Two lawyers and cycling advocates warned it appears to be an attempt to block suits from cyclists who are injured or the families of those who are killed.
“These proposed amendments will exclude those individuals who fall victim to road violence from any potential lawsuit against the province, which would take away from any financial settlement or claim they could be entitled to,” Melissa Dowrie, the director of Bike Law Canada, said in a statement.
“These amendments are acknowledging exactly what advocacy groups have been saying — that the removal of bike lanes will result in a drastic increase in serious injury and death on our roadways,” she said. “The government is clearly trying to put in place a shield to protect themselves from any liability from their baseless actions.”
David Shellnutt, founder of The Biking Lawyer LLP, said the government is trying to “wash their hands of the blood that will be spilled as a result of removing bike lanes and throwing cyclists and other vulnerable road users back into traffic with fast-moving motor vehicles.”
“As someone who represents families who've lost loved ones and people who live with the lifelong effects of injuries like this, this isn't something you should play politics with,” he said. “These are the lives of Ontarians, and it's really crass and inhuman to go after their safety like this. I just, I can't even believe it.”
"This is a political decision and people are going to be killed," NDP MPP Jennifer French said during the committee meeting.
French said that while she’s not a lawyer, “I do find it interesting that claims arising from collisions between motor vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians gets a whole section in (the amendment) — like we know that that's coming, because it is coming,” she said.
Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria wouldn’t say whether the government is trying to shield itself from lawsuits from injured cyclists or the loved ones of those killed.
“I think the safer thing for a cyclist to do would be to make a decision to go on streets that are safer, less volume,” he told reporters after the amendment passed.
Asked about cyclists’ legal recourse against the province, Sarkaria dodged again.
“Well, look, I'm not going to get into the legal hypotheticals here, but what I can say is everything that we are doing here is to maintain safety,” he said.
All three lanes could be entirely removed
The legislation would require cities and towns to get the provincial government’s approval for new bike lanes that would take away a lane of vehicle traffic, including on side streets.
It appears that it would be completely up to the transportation minister to approve or deny new bike lanes. The amendment says that he “may consider” effects on car traffic but is not required to follow any metrics.
On Oct. 15, Sarkaria said the ministry will develop criteria for removals, but the decision will ultimately rest with him.
Municipalities may also have to send the province information about traffic, utilities, surveys, planning documents and other technical data, ostensibly to help inform the minister’s decision.
They will also be required to help by managing traffic and relocating or removing signs, markings and control systems like traffic lights.
Bike lanes that have already started construction, or for which contracts have already been awarded, won’t have to get the province’s approval.
However, as previously announced, the amendment notes that the government will remove the bike lanes on Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street in Toronto and add back vehicle lanes in their place.
It does not say whether all or part of those bike lanes will be removed and doesn't specify whether the Danforth bike lanes could also be removed (Bloor Street becomes Danforth Avenue after it crosses the Don Valley).
Sarkaria confirmed to the committee that “absolutely, all three lanes could be entirely removed.”
Municipalities could be on the hook for removals
The amendment also says the province might not pay for lanes to be removed, which would contradict an earlier promise that cities wouldn’t have to foot the bill for the provincial decision.
The province also won’t have to reimburse municipalities for the money they spent installing the bike lanes in the first place.
“Nothing says partnership like, ‘We're going to rip out your infrastructure, you'll have to pay for it, maybe we'll pay you back for some of it,’” French said.
Toronto city staff released a report last week saying removing the lanes on Bloor, University and Yonge would cost nearly $50 million and seriously disrupt traffic along the streets during reconstruction.
Premier Doug Ford said the price tag was “hogwash.” His government hasn’t offered an estimate of its own.
In a letter to a Queen’s Park committee, city staff said the removals come at such a high price because it would require “significant roadwork” such as rebuilding recently reconstructed streets and road surfacing.
“Removing the recently improved bike lanes on Bloor Street between Spadina and Avenue Road would require a complete road reconstruction, with multiple phases of intersection and lane closures,” staff said in the letter to Queen’s Park.
“Removing the bike lanes on Bloor, Yonge, and University would not be a short-term inconvenience — we’d likely be facing multiple years of successive construction projects that would disrupt daily commutes, harm businesses, and incur costs, for years to come,” the letter continued.
‘What on earth is driving this decision?’
French noted that the 14 people who gave feedback on the bill in committee on Monday didn’t have the full picture, since the government introduced this amendment on Thursday.
“They had to guess what would be in it,” she said.
Of those at committee, “not a single person came to speak in support of this bill,” NDP MPP Jessica Bell added.
French also brought up The Trillium’s reporting on a leaked draft cabinet document that highlighted research showing prohibiting bike lanes doesn’t solve traffic congestion.
“Then what on earth is driving this decision? I would say it has nothing to do with congestion (and) has everything to do with perhaps some friends of the premier or the minister, maybe where they had the announcement,” she said.
Two weeks ago, Progressive Conservative MPPs used their majority to fast-track the process to pass Bill 212. Their vote on Nov. 6 wrapped up the house’s second reading debate stage, set a tight timeline for a parliamentary committee to study the bill, and limited the house’s third reading debate to one hour — several hours shorter than normal.
The 14 witnesses who appeared at the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy’s study of the bill all did in a single day, on Nov. 18. MPPs had until 5 p.m. the next day to submit amendments that’d be debated and voted on throughout meetings on Thursday.
Rarely in the time that Ford’s PCs have controlled a house majority have bills been significantly amended at committee. It’s also exceptionally rare for a minister to appear before a committee to amend their own bill, as Sarkaria did.
The fast-tracking motion PC MPPs passed two weeks ago will mean the final text of Bill 212 — with the amendments made to it — will only be debated by the house for one hour before a final vote on whether or not it becomes law takes place.
In the legislature on Thursday, Government House Leader Steve Clark said the final debate on Bill 212 will be held on Monday. If the government’s plans hold, it could become law early next week.
Shellnutt said the legislation opens the door to legal challenges.
“I can assure you that myself and my law firm will do everything possible, legal and otherwise, to ensure the safety of cyclists in this province,” he said.
“My clients, myself, my own goddamn daughter biking to school is at stake here.”
Cycling advocates will deliver two “ghost bikes” to Queen’s Park on Thursday evening, representing a 13-year-old girl in Ajax and a 47-year-old woman in Kingston who were killed this month while riding their bikes.
“There is a crisis on our roadways,” Shellnutt said. “So we are honouring those people by bringing their bikes to Queen’s Park because we know that without addressing the preventable issues that cause the deaths of those people, there are going to be more of them.
—With files from Charlie Pinkerton and Jessica Smith Cross
This story was updated to reflect the passage of the amendment and to include new comments and quotes throughout.
