Every candidate in this election got the same questionnaire: thirty propositions from Vote Compass, a non-partisan research project run by Vox Pop Labs in partnership with the Toronto Star. Some ask about things a single city councillor has no power over, and a few are worded so a straight answer looks bad no matter which way you lean. I answered every one anyway, on the record, in my own words.
Vote Compass will not publish anything until late September, and inclusion is contingent on official candidate certification after the August 21 nomination deadline. You should not have to wait that long to see where I stand. All thirty questions and my full answers are below. Each one has its own link, so if there’s one you want to share, it’s easy to do.
All 30 questions, and my answers
London should do more to combat climate change.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
A recent audit found London is off track for its 2030 climate target despite what has already been spent, and says catching up will take still more funding. No more throwing good money after bad. I want real results and accountability for tax dollars. A CBC survey of Londoners this election found homelessness, drugs, roads, and taxes topping resident concerns, while climate did not crack the top ten. Let’s focus city hall on what residents are actually asking for.
Municipal workers are paid too much.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
I’m not against fair pay for good work. But total compensation, wages, pensions, benefits, job security, should be comparable to the private sector, not richer than it. A January 2026 Fraser Institute study found Ontario government workers earn a 7.9% wage premium, are 3.5 times more likely to have a pension, and are almost 6 times less likely to lose their job than private sector workers. Fair means comparable. And whatever we pay, we should demand real results for it.
Private contractors are more efficient than municipal workers at delivering most municipal services.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
What actually saves taxpayers money is competition, by exposing services to real competitive bids, whether the winner is a private contractor or the city’s own crew. A C.D. Howe Institute analysis found fully-contracted municipal waste services cost about a third less per household than city-run ones; separate research found privatized garbage collection running roughly 20% cheaper. London should put more services out to competitive tender and let residents see the real price tag either way.
The mayor should never overturn council decisions.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
City councilors, elected ward by ward, should carry more weight than one office overturning them. Even Mayor Morgan has said he doesn’t intend to use his veto power, preferring council to reach its own decisions, and that’s the right instinct. I’d only want an override on the table for a genuine emergency, not as a routine tool. Council’s collective judgment, accountable to every ward, should set the course for London.
Municipal buildings in London should fly the Pride flag during Pride month.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
Official city flags should represent every resident equally, so our flagpoles should fly only the standard Canada, Ontario, or London flags, the banners that belong to all of us without exception. Once the city starts choosing which causes or groups get a flag and which don’t, city hall is picking sides among its own residents. A consistent, neutral flag policy protects that equal standing for all Londoners, with no exceptions and no favourites.
Every municipal council meeting should begin with an acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples’ ties to the land.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
London is stronger when every resident looks forward together as a cohesive whole. Reconciliation should be judged by real outcomes, not by whether the right words were read aloud at the start of a meeting. Repeated at every single meeting, mechanically rehearsed lines become background noise that change nothing on their own. That same time and energy would be better spent on work that produces real results instead of performative recitation from a cue card. Say less, deliver more.
London should keep historic street names and statues, even if they commemorate people who some would consider racist by today’s standards.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
History should be judged in the context of its own time, not erased to fit today’s shifting standards. We can’t rewrite the past by tearing down every name and statue that fails a modern test. The better path is to keep them, add honest context where it’s warranted, and learn from where we fell short. Erasing a name doesn’t undo what happened. Understanding it does.
London should try to keep property taxes low, even if it means fewer services for residents.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
Low taxes and good services don’t have to sit on opposite ends of a seesaw. London’s own budget shows an 8.7% property tax levy increase in a single year, while residents haven’t seen services keep pace. The money isn’t the problem. City Hall’s use of our tax dollars is. I want accountability and efficiency looked at first, cutting frivolities and ensuring our dollars are paying for things Londoners actually need, before anyone is told the only choice is higher taxes or fewer services. Keep taxes low by spending smarter, not by cutting what residents rely on.
London should rely more on fees for specific services rather than raising taxes to pay for them.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
Essential services like roads, water, and safety belong on the tax base; that’s what taxes are for. Fees make sense for optional extras like recreation programs, not core services everyone relies on. And even where a fee-for-service model would work, if a private business already does it well, City Hall shouldn’t be running it at all. One line I won’t cross: I will not support raising tax rates, full stop.
London should apply an additional tax to vacant homes.
Matt’s position: Somewhat disagree
Our infrastructure, like roads and schools, is already buckling under the population pressure we have. A vacant home tax might push a few more units into occupancy, but it adds zero infrastructure capacity, not a single road, pipe, or classroom seat. It just squeezes more people onto systems already at their limit, grows the bureaucracy, and puts extra strain on citizens. I’m loath to create new taxes, period. Dead-set against it, regardless of any potential justification. Fix capacity first, then talk about how homes get used.
London should encourage more multi-unit housing in neighbourhoods that are currently made up mostly of single-family homes.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
Many of London’s neighbourhoods, Lambeth being a prime example, built their appeal over decades: quiet streets, small-town feel, and the kind of trust where people know each other. That character is worth protecting. London has areas suited to high-density, multi-unit housing. Established single-family neighbourhoods aren’t them. Pushing high density where residents expect the opposite, in the name of growth targets, is an assault on their home and sense of belonging. This isn’t anti-growth. It’s growth in the right place, not growth crammed onto people who never asked for it.
London should protect existing green space, even if doing so limits new housing development.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
I’m a staunch defender of property rights, and that includes the right to build on land that’s simply sitting vacant. But green space isn’t a vacant lot. Parks and natural areas serve everyone in a neighbourhood, and that value doesn’t disappear when someone decides they want to chase growth and profits at the expense of something irreplaceable. Protecting genuine green space isn’t a property rights violation. It’s stewardship of something that belongs to the whole community. London can grow without paving over the green space residents actually use.
London should build new housing in existing neighbourhoods rather than create new subdivisions.
Matt’s position: Somewhat disagree
Both approaches can work. Infill in existing neighbourhoods is fine when it genuinely fits the area, and that’s already city policy: the London Plan requires new intensification to be “sensitive to, compatible with, and a good fit within” the existing neighbourhood before it gets approved. New subdivisions are equally legitimate, provided the infrastructure to support them is in place first, not promised for later. What matters is judging each proposal on its own merits, not forcing every project through one blanket approach.
London should cover the cost of programs for low-income residents, even if this means other residents pay more.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
Canadians are charitable by nature. But it’s not charity to forcibly extract wealth, filter it through a bureaucracy, and then dole it out to whoever has the favour of the government of the day. Leave more in Londoners’ pockets, and let us decide how it is best used.
London should install more bike lanes.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
Canada’s weather rules out cycling as a serious option for most of the year, and only the most committed cyclists brave it outside a few good months. Downtown, with higher density and short trips, lends itself more to cycling infrastructure. In the outskirts, with longer distances, cycling is impractical for grocery runs, hauling gear to a kid’s game, or daily travel needs. Building more bike lanes citywide won’t get people out of their cars no matter how much city hall wants it to. We should plan infrastructure around how citizens actually live, not as a tool to control their behaviour.
London should increase the presence of police officers downtown.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
Downtown deserves more police presence, but the risk doesn’t stop at the core. London’s vehicle theft alone jumped nearly 46 percent in a single year, and residential neighbourhoods face real overnight risk too, not just downtown. A downtown-only approach leaves those neighbourhoods exposed exactly when they’re least watched. Police presence should follow where Londoners and their property actually need protecting, day or night, downtown or not.
How much should London spend on policing?
Matt’s position: About the same as now
Police do hard and important work and need to stay well-supported. But that doesn’t mean forking over more money every year without asking what it buys. Before any increase, I want proof the money already committed is going toward what actually works: evidence-based methods with results to show for them. Keep funding steady, and hold every dollar to that standard.
Police should have the authority to require people using illegal drugs in public spaces to leave, even if they are not committing other crimes.
Matt’s position: Strongly agree
Public spaces belong to everyone: families, kids, seniors, all of us. When the law says something is illegal, it shouldn’t quietly stop applying just because someone using drugs in a park or on a sidewalk isn’t also breaking another law at the same moment. Consistent enforcement is what makes a rule mean anything. Police need the authority to keep our shared public spaces safe and welcoming for everyone who uses them.
London should respond to public drug use with support services rather than police enforcement.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
Public drug use is illegal, and services don’t change that. Support services should exist for anyone who wants help, but asking police to step back and let the law go unenforced is where I draw the line. When someone is using drugs in a park, on a sidewalk, or near a school, police need to be able to act, not wait for a caseworker with a different mandate. Offer help to those who want it. Don’t replace the law with a suggestion.
London should spend more money to provide shelter spaces for people experiencing homelessness.
Matt’s position: Somewhat disagree
London already puts real money into this: the city alone contributes roughly $16 million a year toward homelessness response, part of a broader $46 million effort across all funding partners. That’s a serious commitment, not an underfunded afterthought. The next dollar should go toward making that money work harder through effective, results-driven programs, not toward a bigger budget line. And whatever we do, it can’t come with a tax increase.
People experiencing homelessness should be prevented from setting up encampments in public spaces.
Matt’s position: Strongly agree
Public parks and spaces exist for every resident to use and enjoy, and an encampment effectively takes that space away from everyone else. Families can’t picnic, kids can’t play, and neighbours can’t walk through safely when a park becomes a permanent camp. That’s not a fair trade-off for the rest of the community to bear. Support services should be there for anyone who wants them, but public property has to stay open and safe for the public it belongs to.
London should do more to prevent landlords from evicting tenants in order to raise rents.
Matt’s position: Somewhat disagree
Landlords facing rising costs, insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc., need a legitimate way to bring rent to a workable level. Block that path entirely, and eviction becomes their only option left, which helps no one. The bigger risk to tenants isn’t landlords adjusting rent. It’s landlords who can no longer afford to keep units on the market at all, or units that deteriorate because there’s no money left to maintain them. The law needs to work for both sides. Tenants need stability, landlords need viability, and the bills still have to get paid either way.
London should strictly enforce safety rules for rental housing, even if this means some units can no longer be rented out.
Matt’s position: Somewhat disagree
Safety rules exist for good reason. No one should be trapped in a home that’s genuinely unsafe, and I support enforcing a real floor on that. But strict enforcement with no judgment can backfire: push too hard over minor, fixable issues, and some landlords will simply pull units off the market rather than fix them, shrinking supply when London needs more housing, not less. The goal is safe housing and available housing. Enforce real safety standards, but apply them with reasonable judgment, not a rigid rulebook that empties the rental market.
Property developers should pay a greater share of the cost of road, water, and energy infrastructure needed to support new housing construction.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
There’s a real difference between an individual building a single home on their own lot and a large developer laying out an entire new subdivision. An individual shouldn’t be treated like a corporate developer building hundreds of units. But a developer creating brand new demand for roads, water, and energy capacity should cover a fair share of what that growth requires. Existing taxpayers who already paid for their own infrastructure shouldn’t be stuck subsidizing someone else’s profit-driven expansion. Growth should pay for growth, at the scale that’s actually creating it.
London should have strong protections for trees on private property, even if this limits what homeowners can do on their land.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
London already has rules for genuinely significant trees, and that’s a reasonable line. Going further to strong protections that reach into an ordinary homeowner’s backyard crosses into micromanaging what people do with their own land. A resident should be able to manage their own trees without a permit fight over every branch. Large-scale forest clearing by a developer building a subdivision is a different matter, and the London Plan already requires an environmental study before those trees come down. We don’t need a new blanket bylaw. We need to trust homeowners with their own property.
London should spend more on public libraries.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
London already increased library funding by over 5 percent this year, and libraries remain a valued public service. But an open-ended commitment to spend more, without a plan or a cap, isn’t the answer. If there’s a real gap, like building maintenance falling behind, the fix is targeting that specific need inside the existing budget, not writing a blank cheque that pushes taxes higher. Spend smart on what libraries actually need, not just spend more because more sounds good (to some people).
London should spend more on social housing, even if it means tax increases or cuts to other services.
Matt’s position: Strongly disagree
Social housing matters, and the city already puts meaningful money toward it. But this question ties new spending directly to higher taxes or cuts to other core services, and that’s not a trade worth making automatically. Before committing to more, the existing budget needs to be spent effectively; results matter more than the size of the number. Raising taxes or gutting other services to hit an arbitrary spending target isn’t good governance. Make the current dollars work harder first.
London should spend more to improve its public transit service, even if doing so leads to higher fares.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
Fares are different from taxes. Riders choose to pay for a service they use, and that’s a fair way to fund it. If keeping transit viable means adjusting fares, so be it. That’s not the same as saying City Hall needs a bigger transit budget. Before committing to more spending, London needs to show current transit dollars are being used well. Fund transit through the people who ride it, not through higher taxes on everyone else, and only grow the budget when the case for it is actually made.
London should allocate more of its budget to improving roads, even if it means less funding for other core services.
Matt’s position: Somewhat agree
When people picture what government is actually for, roads are usually the first thing that comes to mind. Safe, well-maintained, easily navigable and efficient streets are one of the clearest ways Londoners judge whether their city hall is doing its job. If prioritizing that means fewer dollars for vanity projects and pet initiatives, that is a trade worth making. Roads move people to work, school, and each other. That is core infrastructure, not a nice-to-have, and it deserves to be treated that way in the budget.
London should build more rail underpasses to reduce traffic congestion, even if construction disrupts roads and businesses.
Matt’s position: Somewhat disagree
I’d put an underpass at every rail crossing in London, if I could, and end train delays for good. But they carry real costs. One of the biggest complaints I hear about London construction generally is poor planning jamming up main routes and alternate routes at the same time, with idle time stretching projects out even longer. The Adelaide St. underpass alone ran about $29 million over budget and years behind schedule, and nearby businesses pay the price when customers can’t reach them. Underpasses deserve serious consideration, but only with accountability for cost, timeline, and businesses.
That is every question, in the order Vote Compass asked them. If you can help me sharpen my positions, please get in touch!