Where I stand on business, jobs and red tape
Here is every answer I've given on the record about business, jobs and red tape, word for word, from candidate questionnaires and my replies to residents.
Don't see your question? Search below, or ask me directly and I'll answer it on the record.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
What do you see as the principal opportunities and obstacles facing London's economy over the next Council term? What should the City do to support business growth, job creation, entrepreneurship and investment, and how should it work with employers, Western University, Fanshawe College and others to attract and retain the talent London needs?
London's biggest obstacle to growth is City Hall's own cost and approval friction, not a lack of opportunity. I'd cut both: competitive tendering on City contracts, faster and cheaper permitting for every applicant (not a selective fast-track for one favoured category), and a hard look at any fee or process that doesn't clear a real public-interest test.
On talent, the City already funds London Economic Development Corporation's work connecting Western and Fanshawe students directly to local employers, including the Innovation Park land given to both institutions for applied research; I'd measure that partnership by placements and retained graduates, and expand what's already working rather than launch something new.
Business growth follows tax and regulatory restraint. It doesn't need a new municipal incentive fund.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Arts and culture contribute to London's economy, downtown vitality, tourism, and civic identity. What specific policies or investments would you support to strengthen the cultural sector as a driver of economic development, talent attraction, and placemaking?
Culture can mean jobs, busy downtown nights, and a reason people stay in London. If it's a net benefit, and we can afford it, it would be worth considering. But I'd treat culture the same way I treat every other line in the budget: show me the objective, the cost, and the result.
It's important to keep grant programs arm's-length and transparent, so residents can see who gets funded and why, and we can support affordable venues and creative space through planning rules the City already controls.
Placemaking works when it's tied to a downtown or neighbourhood plan with a cost attached. It fails when it runs on the assumption that culture pays for itself. A cultural sector that attracts talent and visitors is worth supporting when we can see tangible results for the taxpayer dollars spent on it.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
What would you do to promote local public services and good union jobs in our community? Do you support door-to-door mail delivery? Explain your view.
If a City service is worth having, London residents already know about it and use it. Needing an active promotion campaign to justify its existence is itself a sign the service deserves a harder question: is it worth the tax dollars funding it?
Job creation belongs to the private sector. The City does need to employ people directly for essential services like London Transit, London Water, and City Hall itself, and the people doing that work should be compensated on par with a private-sector equivalent.
In a perfect world, door-to-door mail delivery beats a community mailbox for every household. That's a federal Canada Post decision though, outside what a City Councillor can control.
For local jobs more broadly, my focus is on what council controls: the cost and speed of getting a business open or expanded here. Every month a permit or request sits waiting, or a fee gets added to a project, is a month a local employer isn't hiring or a dollar that isn't going towards providing jobs. Removing that friction is the most direct way council can get out of a local employer's way.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
What role should arts, culture and the creative industries play in London's economic and community development? How should the City support cultural organisations, artists, venues, festivals and creative businesses while ensuring that municipal investment produces lasting public value?
While arts, culture, and creative industries can add economic and civic value to London, that value ranks below essential services when taxpayer dollars are on the line. Roads, water, police, and fire come first.
The City can promote London's arts scene without funding it directly. Marketing and cutting the red tape around venues and events cost taxpayers far less than grants, and private and philanthropic support grows the sector better than a Council vote does. If it's not actually garnering voluntary support from private individuals, does it really warrant forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab?
London already runs the London Arts Council's Community Arts Investment Program, about $800,000 a year, plus heritage and tourism-tax-funded culture spending. I'm not planning to cut what exists, but if London's budget ever forces real tradeoffs, arts funding is exactly the kind of spending that gets reduced before essential services do.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
Provide your views on the status of public services and unionized workers for our city. What are your plans for a just economy that supports working people?
Transit operators, water and wastewater crews, and everyone else who keeps this city running in a unionized role do real, skilled work residents depend on every day. I don't doubt that for a second.
Government, at any level, isn't built to engineer a "just" economy. Every serious attempt at it ends up picking winners and creating losers. What actually supports working people is a City that does its own job well: deliver core services efficiently, and keep property taxes and the cost of doing business in London as low as possible. That does more for a working family's paycheque than any citywide economic-justice program could.
I'll judge every City service and every City contract on whether it's delivered efficiently and priced competitively, because that's what keeps taxes from climbing faster than paycheques do. That's the standard I'd apply to how the City treats the people who work for it too: compensation and benefits benchmarked to equivalent private-sector roles, reviewed in the open every term.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
Do you support a change in provincial law that would allow London to charge a vacancy tax for commercial buildings? How will you approach downtown landlords to revitalize economic activity and build a livable city?
My focus for downtown is on what actually gets a vacant storefront filled: cutting the cost and time it takes a small business to open in the first place. A landlord leaves a unit empty when the return on finding a new tenant doesn't clear the cost and delay of permits, inspections, and zoning approvals stacked on top of the lease itself. That's the first cost I'd go after.
Beyond that, downtown revitalization comes back to the basics every other part of the city needs too: reliable transit that actually gets people downtown, streets that are easy to park on or walk to, and predictable approvals for the businesses and housing that bring foot traffic back. Feeling unsafe downtown, from open drug use, disorder, and streets that don't get cleaned, keeps people and customers away as much as any permit delay does. Public drug use is already illegal. I expect the law enforced downtown, as it should be everywhere else in this city. An empty storefront is a signal that opening a business downtown currently costs too much, in dollars and in safety. Fixing both is what fills the space.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
London's economic success depends on reliable local, regional, national and international connections. How would you improve local transit and service to major employment areas and shift workers, intercity bus and air links, and passenger rail? What should businesses and employees be able to expect in terms of frequency, reliability and access?
I opposed BRT in 2018 and would have built this differently, but it's underway now, and my focus from here is finishing it without further cost or schedule blowouts, and making sure it doesn't come at the expense of arterial capacity for the drivers who still make up most commutes. BRT already covers the corridor a light-rail or in-city passenger line would serve, so I don't support building one. For shift workers and employment areas, service should follow where the jobs and shifts actually are, route by route against ridership.
Intercity connections are already working reasonably well: YXU's Air Canada and WestJet routes, and VIA's Toronto-London corridor running about five trips a day each way. The City's role there is advocacy for keeping and growing that service, rather than new municipal spending.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
How would you address concerns about large property owners who leave key downtown buildings vacant or in disrepair, impacting the local economy and community vitality?
A vacant building costs its owner money every month, so most owners would rather fill it. What keeps a building boarded up is the time and cost of permits, inspections and zoning approvals stacked on top of finding a tenant. I’d cut that friction: fast-track permits, and pre-approved designs for adaptive reuse, so turning an empty building into shops or apartments is quicker and cheaper than leaving it sitting. Where an owner lets a building fall apart, the property standards bylaw already applies to every property in the city, vacant or not, and I’d expect it enforced. And downtown has to feel safe and clean, because nobody signs a lease on a street they don’t want to walk down.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
London City Council approved the Climate Emergency Action Plan in 2022. The Plan calls for a 55 per cent reduction in community-wide greenhouse-gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Which elements of the Plan would you prioritise, accelerate or change during the next Council term? How would you ensure that climate action strengthens resilience, affordability and economic competitiveness for residents and businesses?
I'd start by dropping the emergency framing itself. Naming a crisis doesn't change the physics, and it lets spending skip the cost-benefit test every other budget item has to pass. London's own numbers make that case: the City reports 94% of the plan's 200 climate actions on track or complete, while community-wide emissions are 22% below 2005 levels, against a target of 55% by 2030. A deadline is driving the activity, but the results aren't following.
What I'd prioritize and change is this: judge every dollar by what it actually reduces and at what cost, rather than bleed the city dry in the name of an emergency. The Climate Change Reserve Fund's contributions were already cut from $1 million to $192,000 a year, and most of what it's collected still sits unallocated. Money should be allocated where it can return the greatest benefit to Londoners, and I'd hold any other City program to that exact bar. The City's own modelling promises billions in returns from a 25-year investment plan that doesn't break even until the mid-2030s, but that's a projection, and I'd treat it as one until it shows up in real numbers.
Real resilience and affordability come from a strong, well-run local economy: infrastructure kept in good repair, water and stormwater systems sized properly, and emergency response funded before it's needed. Competitiveness means running a city employers can build in, with climate spending measured by results rather than symbolism.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
London City Council has just adopted a new 10-year Downtown Plan and a new Economic Development Strategy. Both identify downtown as an important component of London's economic future. At the same time, downtown investment is likely to be a significant issue in this election, with some Londoners calling for continued investment and others questioning whether downtown receives too much of the City's attention and resources. What role should downtown play in London's future, and how would you rank downtown revitalization among your priorities as an elected official?
Downtown should be a thriving part of the city where people can do business, live, and enjoy entertainment while feeling safe and secure. Downtown matters the way every part of London does.
But I'm running to represent Ward 9, and when downtown's priorities compete with Ward 9's roads, parks, and services for the same attention and the same dollars, I'll always lean the same direction. While every area matters in this city, a councillor's job is to prioritize their own ward.
Neighbourhoods London "Building London Survey"
What will your primary strategy be for making housing more affordable for low income earners?
Other: Cut red tape and make approvals faster and easier, so builders can respond to what the market actually needs. I don't want City Hall directing the housing market from the top down.
Platform (ward9.online homepage)
Your life. Your call.
City Hall keeps adding rules and fees and almost never takes any away. I can’t repeal the pile alone. What I can do is make decisions based on a framework on every regulation that comes to council: does it prevent specific harm, are the costs worth it, would it survive a four-year defence, and does the regulatory environment net grow or shrink? And I’ll keep pushing for a council that subtracts as often as it adds. Let me know about red tape that needs cutting.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
London's Mobility Master Plan commits the City to delivering a safe and connected cycling network suitable for all ages and abilities, including closing critical gaps, adding new facilities, and integrating cycling infrastructure into major road projects. The MMP is based on evidence indicating cities that increase walking, cycling, and transit as viable alternatives to the personal automobile consistently see reduced road congestion, stronger local business activity, and significant cost savings for both residents and government. If you are elected, what specific actions will you take in the next four years to accelerate implementation of London's cycling network, particularly closing critical gaps, ensuring cycling facilities are included in all major road projects, and making active transportation a preferred daily travel option across the city?
I wouldn't accelerate it. I'd aim to make it smarter.
I'd request a four-year schedule that closes gaps where people already travel, and put the priority on links to schools, transit, and jobs where walking and cycling are already practical.
That means safe crossings at danger points where people are currently at risk, and coordinating with planned road renewals so a street isn't torn up twice.
I'd review every major road project for what it does for people walking, cycling, and using mobility devices, whether the arterials move more efficiently, and whether neighbourhood streets stay protected.
I'd publish the safety and usage results so residents can see if the benefit outweighed the cost.
A citywide mode-share target on paper isn't the project. I won't use 32.5% by 2050 to justify a build that fails on its own street.
I'd judge each project on safety, usage, and whether it matches how Londoners get around.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
Would you champion this program at City Council / as Mayor?
Other: I’d vote in favour of a registry built the way I’ve described, but I won’t lead a push for burdening good landlords the same as bad ones.
A big part of my platform is cutting red tape, so every new rule that comes to Council has to show it’s worth the burden it adds. The registry I’ve described can pass that test, because it replaces the current rental licence for the landlords it covers and leaves the homeowner renting out part of their home alone. If it comes to Council built that way, it gets my vote.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
Is there anything else you would like to share regarding housing affordability, tenant protections, rental housing quality, homelessness prevention, or other housing-related priorities?
Most of my answers come back to one idea. Renters do best when there’s a For Rent sign on more than one street to choose from and the rent isn’t climbing to cover City Hall’s spending. I’ll hold the line on property taxes and cut the red tape that keeps new rental housing from getting built and rented out.
My goal is for the market to provide every kind of home, from a bedroom rental to a high-rise apartment, to dynamically meet the demand of those seeking them.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
At a time when municipalities face significant pressures around housing, homelessness, infrastructure and affordability, why should, or shouldn't, the City continue investing public money in arts and culture?
I'd support investing public money in arts and culture when it earns its place. Housing, homelessness, infrastructure, and affordability come first.
A city needs more than emergency response, but every cultural dollar still has to face an honest public test.
Cultural spending can support local jobs and downtown activity when the benefit is measurable, but no line item gets automatic protection just because it makes a good sound-bite.
I'd require a public-purpose test and a measurable return for every cultural dollar. When those are transparent, a focused cultural investment can still clear the bar without jumping the line ahead of housing, and without burdening the taxpayer.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Downtown London has many vacant commercial and heritage properties. What actions, if any, would you support to encourage these properties to be occupied, restored, or redeveloped in ways that serve the public interest? Please provide specific examples.
Cut the friction. Fast-track permits and support pre-approved designs for adaptive reuse, like turning vacant buildings into housing or retail, so redevelopment is faster and cheaper than sitting empty. Streamline heritage permitting instead of layering on more review.
A vacant building costs its owner money every month; if we make it easier to fix that, most owners will.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
As a Ward Councillor, would you actively champion and vote in favour of a strong Landlord Registration Program with proactive enforcement at City Council? Please explain your position.
For any landlord who rents out more than one building they don’t live in, or even a single apartment building or other medium- or high-density rental, I’d vote in favour of a registry so there’s a name and contact info on file when mould starts creeping across a bathroom ceiling or cockroaches start appearing.
For enforcement, I’d keep it responsive: tenant complaints get a fast inspection and strong consequences for non-compliance, and a building that keeps generating substantiated complaints goes onto scheduled inspections until it earns a clean record. That puts the City’s attention on the worst offenders and keeps the homeowner renting out a basement apartment free of new red tape.
Pillar Nonprofit Network 2026 Candidate Survey
How would you ensure nonprofits - as partners in achieving community outcomes, not just recipients of grants- are included in decisions affecting community wellbeing, economic growth, and city planning?
I would not give non-profits, or any other group, special privileges over the voices of my constituents, who are the reason I am running for office, and my chief concern.
Pillar Nonprofit Network 2026 Candidate Survey
What role do you see the nonprofit sector playing in London's economic vitality and community wellbeing over the next four years, and what would success look like over your term?
Success looks like addressing the concerns of my constituents, keeping their tax bills from rising, and providing the services that the city is obligated to provide for them. If nonprofits can play a role, that's great, but it's not something I can control.
Neighbourhoods London "Building London Survey"
How will your development policies and decisions better support local businesses?
Faster, simpler approvals help local builders and contractors most, because small companies can't afford staff to chase paperwork.
Making growth pay for its own roads and sewers also keeps that cost off existing local businesses.
And a developed neighbourhood with happy families is good for business.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Bill 5 creates Special Economic Zones where the provincial government has the power to exempt designated projects from provincial laws, regulations, and municipal bylaws. This authority could be used to waive environmental protections, health and safety requirements, labour standards, and other safeguards.
Do you support Bill 5?
Bill 5 significantly limits opportunities for First Nations consultation and consent. The legislation allows the Ontario government to bypass critical processes that safeguard species at risk, cultural heritage, and treaty rights particularly in regions like the Ring of Fire. It concentrates decision-making power in the hands of ministers and the Lieutenant Governor without mandating First Nations involvement, threatening sovereignty, land stewardship, and ongoing reconciliation efforts.
Do you support the Ontario First Nations Chiefs' legal challenge against Bill 5?
Bill 5's Special Economic Zones Act lets the province override local bylaws to fast-track a designated project. I don't find the First Nations legal challenge's theory persuasive as the reason to strike it down. That's a separate legal question from whether Bill 5 itself is good policy. My objection to Bill 5 is mine: it hands the province a tool to override decisions this city's own council makes, and I don't think Toronto should be able to overrule London on what happens in London. That's the same principle behind keeping water under municipal control. If a project needs an exemption from local rules to happen, the community it affects should be the one deciding that, not a provincial cabinet order.
Neighbourhoods London "Building London Survey"
Describe your strategy for improving housing affordability for the middle class.
The same approach. Faster permits and pre-approved designs lower what it costs to build, and that matters most in the middle of the market, where there are no subsidies to lean on. I'd rather lower the City's costs on builders than add programs that cost taxpayers money.
TREA (Thames Region Ecological Association) environmental questionnaire
Environmental Responsibility
London declared a climate emergency on April 23, 2019. Council's own resolution names the purpose: "naming, framing, and deepening our commitment to protecting our economy, our eco systems, and our community from climate change." That's a framing exercise, and I don't support scare tactics like calling something a climate emergency to win support for a position. Real environmental protection matters, but it has to come at a cost taxpayers can afford.
The City's own July 2025 CEAP progress report shows the gap between promise and delivery. Corporate emissions rose 4 percent year over year. Council approved $1 million a year for the Climate Change Reserve Fund and then cut that to $192,000. The City allocated $1.19 million for projects and spent $225,000 of it, while project requests totaled $1.2 to $1.9 million. The plan lacks the funding to match its own commitments. If elected, I would oppose spending justified by the "emergency" label alone. Genuine environmental spending should clear the same bar as every other line item in the budget: what result did it produce for the cost?
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should build more rail underpasses to reduce traffic congestion, even if construction disrupts roads and businesses.
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.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
What changes would you make to municipal approvals, regulation, procurement and customer service to make it easier to invest, build and operate a business in London?
City Hall keeps adding rules and fees and almost never takes any away, and I can't repeal that pile alone. What I can do is run every regulation that comes to council through one framework: does it prevent specific harm, are the costs worth it, would it survive a four-year defence, and does the regulatory environment net grow or shrink?
I support a one-in-two-out rule so old rules retire as new ones are added, safety and accessibility codes excluded, and compiling and publishing an inventory of every business regulation, its cost, and what it actually enforces.
On approvals and customer service, businesses deserve to know how long a decision will take and who's accountable for it. I'd push for published turnaround standards and a single point of contact per application. That's the transparency I already want applied to every regulation. Procurement should be competitive by default; that saves taxpayers money and gives London businesses a fair shot at contracts they may not even know are available.
TREA (Thames Region Ecological Association) environmental questionnaire
Circular Economy and Waste Reduction
London already has real programs working here: weekly Green Bin collection, four year-round EnviroDepots, and Blue Box recycling's shift to full producer responsibility, completed province-wide at the end of 2025. That shift puts the cost on the companies that make the packaging instead of on municipal budgets, although taxpayers are likely footing the bill one way or the other (either directly through municipal taxes or indirectly via passed-through costs on goods).
London's landfill, W12A, was expected to hit capacity in 2024. The City won approval to expand it, buying time to 2049, but every tonne of waste that gets reused or repaired instead of landfilled stretches that runway further. Diverting waste is fiscal prudence: landfill capacity is a finite, expensive asset, and W12A's expansion won't be the last one taxpayers pay for if the City doesn't also reduce what goes in.
London doesn't need any new bureaucracy. Any expansion in this area should come from volunteers, like with the London Repair Café, now hosted at library branches. And the city could lead by example by buying refurbished and repairable goods, and salvaging materials instead of demolishing in its own projects.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Affordable housing is a major concern for London voters. What actions do you think City Council should take to address the affordable housing crisis in London?
Faster approvals, not more subsidy. London's Plan already requires 25 to 40 percent of new housing be affordable, and the City already waives fees and assigns concierge staff for those units. That's real interference already. The honest fix is speed: pre-approved designs, like the federal housing catalogue, and faster permits, so supply actually grows.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
What will you do to respond to the businesses and residents impacted by homelessness in their neighbourhoods?
Communication is the easy part. A contact number and a follow-up email don't fix anything on their own, and residents and business owners in this city have had enough studies and plans thrown at them. They're right to expect more than that. They expect the problem in their backyard or in front of their store to actually get resolved.
So here's what that means in practice. Every resident report should get a clear contact path and a real response time, as the bare minimum starting point. Behind that has to be actual outreach and enforcement, whichever the situation calls for, and a public record of whether the problem was resolved or not. If the same corner shows up on a list month after month with nothing changing, that's a process failure.
The success metric Londoners care about is whether a person got help and whether the sidewalk in front of that business is actually safe and usable again.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
What financing approach would you support across the police and fire project accounts, including debt, reserves, development charges, and other contributions? Would you require a consolidated financing plan before further approvals? Please identify any limits or conditions you would seek to protect municipal finances, distinguishing adopted financing from forecasts and actual receipts.
Business Case P-57 financed all $204.7 million of its additional capital with debt repaid from property taxes, and it booked $0 from reserves, development charges or other governments. That package also covers police headquarters work, and it carries $77.3 million in debt payments from 2028 to 2033, about $12.9 million a year.
The business case put its 2026 tax impact at 0.78 percent, or $30.98 on an average residential property. I won’t vote for a budget that raises property taxes during my term, so I’d require a consolidated financing plan across the police and fire project accounts before any further approvals, showing each source and separating adopted financing from forecasts and actual receipts. My conditions would be no new borrowing beyond what council has already authorized, and any provincial or federal money applied to the debt first.
Source: Business Case P-57, capital budget table and tax levy impact table
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should have strong protections for trees on private property, even if this limits what homeowners can do on their land.
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
As of 2024, one in three households in London face some form of food insecurity. Many families must choose between paying rent and getting enough groceries to meet their nutritional needs. What city-level actions do you think could be taken to address food insecurity in London?
Food insecurity is primarily an income problem, though the City still has real tools available. The health unit's own primer to every candidate this September puts Middlesex-London household food insecurity at 31.3 percent in 2024, up from about 17 percent in 2019.
The London Food Bank is privately run, not a City department, but the City partners with it directly, promoting donations and running food-rescue programs that get fresh produce that would otherwise be thrown out to people who need it. That's a real, working piece of infrastructure, and I'd keep London leaning into it.
Beyond that, the City funds anti-poverty and food-related non-profits through its Community Grants Program. I'd want those dollars judged the same way I judge every other City dollar: a real accounting of what the money actually bought, with grant agreements that tie the funding to food-insecurity outcomes specifically, not just a general mission fit.
No city councillor can honestly claim to fix household income. That's a whole-of-government and economy-wide problem, well beyond what any one level of government controls, let alone one seat on council. What the City can do is not waste money pretending otherwise, and make sure what it does spend actually gets food to people who need it.
TREA (Thames Region Ecological Association) environmental questionnaire
Open-Air Burning
No, I wouldn't support a ban on open-air burning. London already has a framework that handles this: By-law F-9 requires a permit above a certain size and restricts burning hours, and the City can shut burning down entirely when air quality turns dangerous, which is exactly what happened automatically in July 2026 during the wildfire smoke event. That's the right tool for a real hazard. A backyard fire on a normal night is a different situation. A blanket ban is like closing every stove in the city because one kitchen caught fire. Your question comes down to two different things: neighbours disagreeing over an occasional fire, and smoke reaching dangerous levels citywide. The bylaw already draws that line, and I'd keep it there.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
What is your understanding of the relationship between the adopted project budgets and the published phase figures? Would you support further financial commitments before a public reconciliation is available? What specific information or Council action would you seek, and when? Please distinguish your interpretation from facts established by records.
The three budget lines you name add up to $186.781 million through 2033 in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, and Business Case P-57 splits the training campus into three stages of $137.0 million, $8.0 million and $41.7 million, which comes to about $186.7 million. Those are the records. My interpretation is that the City’s $186.8 million is the business-case campus, and the $133 million and $50 million phase figures group the work differently.
The City’s Phase 1 list includes a 911 dispatch centre, an emergency operations centre and a new fire station, and P-57’s Stage 1 description mentions none of them. I won’t support any construction contract or new borrowing until a public reconciliation of the two sets of figures exists. If elected, I would seek a motion directing staff to publish it before the 2027 Class D estimates come to council.
Sources: 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, capital detail: PP4481 p. 218 ($79,663K), FS1095 p. 231 ($69,102K), PP4482 p. 232 ($38,016K) · Business Case P-57, Stages 1 to 3 · Phase lists
Climate Action London questionnaire
The City of London should implement a 1-2 year moratorium on AI Data Centres. There are many harmful aspects to AI Data Centres such as straining local energy grids, constant industrial level noise, heat island impacts over 2 degrees potential up to 10kms away, high water usage or other potential negative environmental impacts from maintaining closed loop cooling systems. AI Data Centres also provide very few jobs after construction. A moratorium would allow proper higher level government regulation and standards to be created before putting London residents at risk.
Slightly disagree. A one or two-year freeze treats every proposal the same. Some sites would pull hard on the local grid, run noisy equipment next to homes, and draw heavily on the municipal water system to cool it. Other sites don't have to. Burlington is currently reviewing a 20-megawatt data centre that is air-cooled (uses no municipal water for cooling) and is going through the same site plan and servicing review as any other large building in the city. That difference is exactly what a blanket freeze ignores.
I will not vote for a moratorium. Hamilton's council rejected a one-year data centre pause in July, 10 to 6. I will vote for conditions instead. A campus that wants City approval should bring power generation that adds capacity to the local grid instead of only serving itself, use cooling that does not negatively impact the municipal water system, and meet noise and setback rules that protect nearby homes.
Construction employment is real, but temporary, and permanent staffing once the site is operating is a small fraction of that construction workforce. The lasting local return is property tax assessment growth and, if the generation condition is enforced, grid capacity the entire city benefits from too. Both depend on the conditions being written into the approval, not assumed after the fact. I will approve a data centre that meets the tests. I will refuse one that does not.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
London is a UNESCO City of Music. Do you think the city has taken full advantage of that designation? If not, what would you like to see London do with it over the next four years?
A UNESCO title on letterhead doesn't build a music scene. The people who write, play, book, and fill the rooms do that.
London can facilitate and assist where it's sustainable and not a burden on taxpayers: clearer rules, faster permits for venues and events, and a light touch that gets out of the way. If a partnership has an honest cost up front and doesn't grow bureaucracy, I'll look at it. If it's mainly a way to wave the designation around, I won't.
Over the next four years I want that title tied to what artists and venues get done, with results residents can see.
London Muslims Vote candidate questions
Should the City limit the number of new cannabis stores?
No. The province’s AGCO licenses cannabis stores and already keeps them at least 150 metres from schools. Council’s formal role is a written comment during a 15-day public notice. I won’t ask the province to cap a lawful business because of how anyone feels about the product.
Where a specific location doesn’t fit a neighbourhood and faces opposition, I’ll stand with the residents.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Is keeping property taxes low a priority for you?
Yes. London has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and every tax dollar taken is a dollar out of a family's or small business's pocket.
I won't vote for any property tax increase, for any reason during my term.
Growth should pay for growth: new development should cover the roads, water, and sewer capacity it demands, so existing taxpayers aren't subsidizing someone else's expansion.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
How do you balance the needs of people experiencing homelessness with the concerns of residents and businesses?
Everyone deserves dignity.
Residents and businesses deserve safe, usable public spaces too, and those two things aren't in conflict when the system actually works.
London already runs a Coordinated Informed Response team, made up of City staff, London Police, and London Cares, that's on the street every day. The City calls this a caring, compassionate approach, but homelessness and related issues are still one of the biggest concerns Londoners have.
Council also endorsed a full Community Encampment Plan back in June 2024, including a rapid forced closure protocol for situations that need one, but as of the City's own documents, it still hasn't been fully operationalized. That gap between the vote and the follow-through is a serious problem.
The City runs monthly dashboards tracking shelters, encampments, and its Highly Supportive Housing program. I'd hold the city to actually using that data, and changing course where the current approach clearly isn't working.
Supported housing has to come with real conditions. If the City is putting people into housing, that housing needs to stay safe and free of drugs and other illegal activity, for the well-being of both the people living there and for the neighbours around it.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
London City Council approved the 2025-2035 ReconciliAction Plan in May 2025, committing the City to 155 actions over ten years. What should the next Council do to translate these commitments into a clear, properly resourced implementation plan developed with Indigenous partners? How would you advance reconciliation through economic development, procurement, planning, cultural investment and municipal services?
Every City program gets judged by a single test in my book: does it serve every Londoner equally, does the benefit justify the cost, and does it actually work. That's the test I'd apply to the ReconciliAction Plan's 155 actions.
Procurement should be competitive by default, which is the standard I hold every City contract to: open bidding, best value, openly available to all who are qualified.
On planning and municipal services, every Londoner deserves an equally efficient process and equally good service. Cultural investment should follow the rule I'd apply to any public facility or program: the City funds general-use spaces and programs as economically as possible for all Londoners, and Londoners decide how they're used, rather than City Hall picking who gets priority.
The real gap is accountability. The Plan's own next-steps section admits an implementation strategy with actual metrics and timelines is still being developed, reviewed only once every two years. A ten-year, 155-action commitment without real metrics is just a longer speech. That's the piece I'd push the next Council to finish first.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The rise of the far right, both internationally and, particularly, in Southwestern Ontario, is a concern for many voters. In 2017, in response to a planned rally by groups promoting racist and hateful views, London City Council passed an emergency motion condemning all forms of racism, bigotry, and hate and prohibiting hate groups from holding rallies on city-owned property. In November 2025, a far-right group hung a banner from the Wortley Road overpass with the message "Remigration Now."
What measures, if any, would you support City Council taking to prevent or respond to similar activities by far-right groups in the future?
Nobody is above the law. And nobody should feel intimidated or targeted in their own city, and I take that seriously. I would go even further. I wouldn't stop at the far-right; I support full enforcement against anyone, of any ideology no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, committing illegal acts. And, in accordance with the law, if speech is lawful, then it must be permitted. The best disinfectant is daylight.
Accessible London Coalition candidate questionnaire
How will you work to improve accessible transportation including conventional transit, Paratransit, taxis and ride sharing?
Paratransit riders report strong on-time performance, at 85% compared with 46% for conventional transit. Their problem is capacity. LTC turns away hundreds of trip requests. More vehicles and scheduling capacity would help, but funding is the constraint.
The taxi issue is economic too, from a different angle. Sixteen of London's 31 accessible-cab licences sit unused, so this isn't a licence shortage. Converting or buying an accessible vehicle runs over $130,000, and it must charge the same fare as a regular cab. The City's bylaw then forces that vehicle off the road at 12 years old, even though every cab already passes an annual City safety inspection regardless of age. I'd replace that flat age limit with the annual safety inspection the City already requires for Vehicles for Hire. And I'd like your opinion: if taxis could charge an increased fare for paratransit in exchange for more accessible cabs on the road, would that be worth exploring? Or off the table?
Ride-sharing isn't filling that gap either. Uber's wheelchair-accessible option only runs in a handful of Canadian cities, and London isn't one of them. The City's Vehicle for Hire bylaw already allows an Accessible Private Vehicle for Hire. Operators aren't putting those vehicles on the road here. I'd like to explore if there's something that London could do to accommodate this.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
London spent $1.3 million on the Housing Collaborative Initiative — software that was never used — with $933,000 going to a single outside consultant. Council went years without meaningful updates while the bills quietly mounted. The London Economic Development Corporation receives $2.3 million annually under a purchase-of-services agreement that is not put to tender. Other organizations receiving millions for homelessness work resist even basic public reporting. Taxpayers should not need a Freedom of Information request — often answered with redactions — to see their own spending.
Will you ensure all contracts, invoices, and spending details are proactively published and accessible to council without an FOI request — and what reporting frequency will you demand from every funded agency?
I'll push for it. Since it takes a council majority, no single councillor can ensure that outcome outright, but I'll vote for it and keep pushing until it happens. Contracts, invoices, and spending details should be published proactively, and not surrendered one redacted page at a time after a Freedom of Information request.
On the multi-city Housing Collaborative Initiative, London paid a consultant roughly $800,000, and residents only learned the details because reporters kept pulling the thread. I'd require every agency receiving City funding to report quarterly with real numbers attached to real deliverables, published where any resident can find it.
Any vendor contract that requires basic facts like cost, scope, or performance to stay confidential is a contract I'd vote against, and any privacy impact assessment should be public before council votes on it.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should rely more on fees for specific services rather than raising taxes to pay for them.
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.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Should the City advocate for additional powers from the Province, such as the authority to impose a vacant commercial property tax?
Yes, I'd support the City advocating for more power from the Province generally, including the authority to levy a vacant commercial property tax if council chose to. That's a question about which level of government should have the tool available, not whether I'd personally use it.
If it came to an actual vote on imposing that tax, I'd vote against it. I'm loath to create new taxes, period, and a vacant property tax is still a new tax. My approach to vacant buildings is the one I laid out above: cut the friction. Fast-tracked permits and pre-approved designs for adaptive reuse make it cheap and quick to fix up a vacant building, so owners have a real reason to act. That gets the result a tax is aiming for, without adding another bill for a property owner who's already struggling to fill the space.
Either way, I'd rather London hold the authority to make that call for itself than need permission from Toronto to even consider it.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
What is your understanding of the amount and purposes of any provincial funding request, and what source supports that understanding? Please distinguish a request from an approved contribution or money received. What should the City publish about the request and its conditions? If provincial funding is smaller than anticipated or unavailable, how should that affect the project and municipal financing?
As far as I can find, no specific provincial request is on the public record. Business Case P-57 books $0 in grants, and the City told you only that it continues to advocate to the provincial and federal governments.
At the July 2025 site approval, the mayor spoke of the “potential to partner regionally, provincially and federally,” which states an intention without an amount. I’ve found nothing showing an approved contribution or money received. The strongest case for provincial money is the space planned for the Provincial HAZMAT response unit, since that serves the province’s own program.
The City should publish the amount it has asked for and when, along with any conditions attached. If provincial money comes in smaller than hoped or never arrives, the later phases should wait, and I won’t support filling that gap with more borrowing or a tax increase.
Sources: Business Case P-57, operating table (Grants: $0) · City of London newsroom, July 22, 2025 (mayor’s quote) · Provincial HAZMAT space
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
"Safer supply" policies have seen taxpayer-funded drugs distributed for unobserved consumption, alongside open drug use, encampments, and a visible decline in public safety. Recovery and treatment must come first, and council must add pressure on the provincial and federal governments.
Do you support an end to "safer supply" being distributed for unobserved consumption by addicts, as well as open drug use — and will you support recovery programs and enforcement against open drug use and encampments that threaten public safety?
My principle is simple: nothing illegal should be permitted in any taxpayer-funded facility, or anywhere in London.
Shelters: this council considered, and in August 2026 pulled back from, a proposal that would have stopped shelters from denying entry over drug possession. I'd have opposed that proposal from the start. Drug use is already banned, at least on paper, in every shelter; I want that made a clear, permanent, city-wide rule, not left to each operator's discretion.
Safer supply is a provincial program, not something council sets, but diversion is real: London pharmacies have been documented dispensing take-home doses that get resold on the street. That's trafficking, already illegal, and I support council's own push for the province to review it.
Open drug use is already illegal, too. I expect it enforced everywhere, rather than tolerated or ignored. Encampments should be cleared; public spaces should stay open for every Londoner.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Bad faith renovictions by landlords have resulted in tenants being evicted from their rental homes. In 2025 council approved a Rental Unit Repair Bylaw. Is it enough? What else can London do to address this issue?
London already has a tool for renovictions. The Rental Unit Repair Licence has been in force since March 1, 2025. A landlord serving an N13 for renovations needs a building permit first, and has to apply for that licence within seven days.
But here's what people miss on evictions generally. The bigger risk to tenants isn't a landlord adjusting rent to cover rising costs, insurance, taxes, maintenance. It's a landlord who can't afford to keep the unit on the market at all, or a unit that falls apart because there's no money left to maintain it. Block every legitimate path to a workable rent, and there will be no more units left for renters to live in. That helps no one.
Same logic applies to safety enforcement; nobody should be trapped in a home that's genuinely unsafe. But push too hard over minor, fixable issues, and landlords pull units off the market instead of fixing them. That only shrinks the supply, and there is no avoiding the laws of supply and demand.
The law has to work for both sides. Tenants need stability. Landlords need viability. Enforce the licence, and apply safety standards with reasonable judgment.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The City of London employs Property Standards Officers to inspect rental properties, document conditions, and enforce municipal property standards by-laws. Would you support expanding their role to document evidence of suspected bad-faith evictions or landlord fraud, preserve that evidence, and refer well-documented cases to London Police or the appropriate provincial authorities for investigation?
This exposes a real problem: two levels of government both claiming the same job.
Property Standards Officers enforce municipal by-laws, property condition, permits, the renovation-eviction licence process. Determining "bad-faith eviction" or "landlord fraud" is a legal finding, and that authority already sits with the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, backed by the province's own Rental Housing Enforcement Unit and the police for anything criminal.
Layering a City investigation function on top of that doesn't fix the problem, it just gives London two agencies doing the same job with no clearer answer for tenants. Pick one. Either it stays provincial, where the legal authority already exists, or it moves to the municipal level, and if it moves, the funding moves with it. The Province downloading enforcement onto the City without downloading the money to pay for it is how you end up with an unfunded program and the same complaints a year from now.
Ottawa looked at this exact proposal and rejected it for the same reason. I'd rather push the province to actually enforce the powers it already has than build a duplicate program the City can't properly fund.
London Free Press candidate survey
The base salary for councillors elected in October will be boosted to more than $94,000, with a recommendation that council should be treated as a full-time job as a result. Will council be your sole occupation?
No. I'm not giving up the family farm to become a full-time politician, and I'm opposed to pinning council salary to more than what 70% of full-time working Londoners earn. That's why I drafted the Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers (PACT) bylaw. Making council a career discourages the kind of people this job actually needs: those who understand what it's like to run a business, meet a payroll, or work a trade, because they're still doing it. Staff already do the day-to-day work of the City. Council's job is to set direction and represent the will of their constituents.
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
The $5-per-night fee for overnight winter parking?
The $5 fee you're asking about is a different rule though, and a different question. Every plate (which is its own issue, with no per-address limit) gets 15 free overnight passes each winter, and only after that do you start paying $5 a night, separate from the snow-event ban. That fee doesn't buy you anything on a plow night, either (and it shouldn't). It only applies on ordinary nights when the streets aren't being cleared. I couldn't find any satisfactory justification from the City for charging a fee once the free nights run out, and I'm not convinced yet that it's worth keeping, at least in its current form. I know past councils have already inquired into this.
I'm not ready to stake a solid position, because I want to find out for sure if there is a proper justification or need for that fee, or the 15-night cap. I don't take my commitments lightly. But I want you to know where I stand right now. With the way neighbourhood planning has gone in London, I understand the need to prevent excessive street parking, which could become a real mess with so many houses in such close proximity. But I do lean against any unnecessary fees and regulations that make daily life more costly and burdensome, across the board, so it would take a good argument to sell me on the fees over and above the free permit. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-14.)
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
Would you commit to timely, complete responses to freedom-of-information requests about surveillance technology?
Yes, and it needs enforcement given the record. In 2017, London Police Service completed only 56.2% of FOI requests within the province's deadline at the time, well below the 81% municipal average that year. Under the current 45-business-day standard, missing that deadline outright counts as a deemed refusal, appealable to Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner. I would hold LPS to that standard publicly.
That commitment covers the technology itself: contracts, the privacy impact assessment, audit results, and deployment policy should all be releasable in full, and a vendor's confidentiality clause should never be the reason a resident can't see what the City is buying, what it costs, or what an audit found. Any contract that requires those basic facts to stay secret is a contract I would vote against before it ever creates an FOI problem.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
What are your ideas about addressing the affordability and housing crisis in London? What is your position on a renoviction bylaw?
London's rental unit repair licence requires a landlord issuing an N13 renovation notice to apply for a City licence within seven days, backed by a building permit and a qualified professional's report confirming the unit genuinely needs to be empty. It's been in force since March 2025. The City's own review found only seven applications for the special licence so far, which tells me it's catching bad-faith cases without choking off legitimate repairs. I support keeping it. The problem it targets is a landlord using a fake renovation to end-run an eviction the Landlord and Tenant Board would never approve. That's exactly the kind of narrow, provable harm that justifies a rule.
On affordability more broadly, my read is that London's own approvals process is a real part of the cost problem. Every month a housing application sits waiting for a decision adds carrying costs that get passed straight into the price of the unit. I want faster, more predictable approvals and fewer site-specific exceptions granted off-plan, so a builder can price a project accurately. A subsidy program only stretches to cover a handful of units, while faster approvals lower the cost of every unit that gets built. On the other side of supply and demand is demand itself, which council can only move secondarily. Making London a place fewer people want to live, just to bring prices down, would be treating a symptom of failure as if it were a policy win. My focus stays on supply, where council actually has the tools to help.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
In a 2025 survey, Londoners identified homelessness as their top issue. In spite of significant investments, the city's level of homelessness is continuing to grow. What do you believe council has done well in dealing with this critical issue? What would you do differently?
Council has made progress worth noting. It built 24/7 Hubs that have moved dozens of people into stable housing, a Highly Supportive Housing Plan with actual staffing and intake standards behind it, and London was the first city in Canada approved for federal Housing Accelerator Fund money, over 80 million dollars now, tied to real unit targets the City has actually beaten on permits issued.
But there are problems, straight from the City's own numbers. The City keeps a real, active count of every person known to be homeless in London. In 2021, that count was just over a thousand people. By the end of last year, it was nearly twenty-three hundred. That's a core measure of this crisis, and it more than doubled while the City was building all of that infrastructure.
Council endorsed a full Community Encampment Plan back in 2024. The City's own website says it still hasn't been fully put into practice. That lack of follow-through on the plans already voted on is a real gap. And in 2024, the share of people successfully diverted away from homelessness actually dropped, well below the City's own five-year average.
I don't want to keep funding programs that return no or negative results. I'd rather run smaller pilot projects, test them against real outcomes, and get behind whatever actually works instead of pouring more into something the City's own numbers say hasn't been effective.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
A councillor's sworn duty is to represent citizens and manage their money responsibly. That requires real financial literacy — reading budgets, understanding debt, and prioritizing spending. Too many elected officials arrive with no financial training and treat the job as a platform for grand, top-down social projects that belong in provincial or federal politics.
What is your actual experience reading budgets and financial statements, and will you commit to ongoing financial training as a condition of holding office?
I took a first year Business course at Western University, and I've also kept my books and filed my own taxes since I started Matt Millar Technology Solutions, so I'm used to reading real numbers and acting on them myself.
I've been familiarizing myself with the City's budget documents and procedures too, including the multi-year budget update and the reasoning and calculations behind council's own pay resolution, because you can't hold anyone accountable to numbers you haven't read and understood yourself. If I ever need financial training beyond that, I'm open to it.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Cycling infrastructure is currently patchy or incomplete in places. What would you prioritize to make active transportation (cycling, walking, mobility devices) safer and more connected, and how would you balance that against concerns from residents and businesses about parking and traffic flow?
We need to plan around how Londoners actually travel. Council's Mobility Master Plan targets walking, cycling, and transit rising from about 23% of trips to 32.5% or more by 2050, with personal-vehicle driving falling from 61% to 52.5%. Most trips today still rely on cars, so I'd judge every project against how people move now and want to move in the future, not against some dreamed up target.
I want to get the arterials moving, protect neighbourhood streets, and put the investment where people will use it. I'd advocate for cycling infrastructure that's safe and connected, and focused where cycling is already a practical way to get around.
Londoners are tired of staring at empty bike and bus lanes while they're stuck in gridlock and can't find a place to park.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
You may add up to 150 words identifying a material omission, correcting the premise, or explaining a position not adequately covered by these questions. Evidence supporting particular facilities, or showing that changing course would cost more, is welcome.
Two items are missing from the public record. The first is the consultant’s feasibility study behind the site and the budget, since CTV reported in July 2025 that council approved the Manning Drive site without seeing it. I’d like to see that released.
The second is revenue. P-57 says the consultant projected a net gain of $243,000 by year 12 from renting training space, assuming 75 percent use of the key spaces, and that London Fire could become a regional training centre for surrounding departments. Neighbouring services that train here should pay their share, and council should see that rental plan before it approves Phase 2.
Sources: CTV News London, July 2025 · Business Case P-57 (revenue projection; regional training centre)
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
Would you seek a dated public account of expenditures to date, outstanding contractual commitments, uncommitted budgets, and potential termination liabilities? How would those figures inform a decision to proceed, modify, defer, or cancel work? Please distinguish money already spent from future avoidable costs, and costs arising from a change of course.
Yes. I’d ask staff for a dated public account of four separate numbers: what has been spent, what is under contract, what is budgeted but uncommitted, and what it would cost to terminate each contract.
Concrete that’s already poured is spent whichever way council votes, so it shouldn’t drive the decision. Concrete that hasn’t been ordered is still a choice.
The figures that matter are the future costs council can still avoid and the price of changing course, which includes termination costs and the extra travel and lost training days P-57 says would come with training elsewhere.
I’d judge each component on what’s left to spend against what it delivers, and I’d defer or cancel any piece where that comparison doesn’t hold up.
Source: Business Case P-57 (costs of training in other cities)
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
If Ontario contributes funding, what should it change: municipal borrowing, reserve use, other municipal contributions, project scope, timing, or property-tax requirements? What public accounting would you require to show how the contribution was applied and whether any claimed municipal savings occurred?
Provincial money should pay down borrowing first. P-57 finances its additional capital with debt carried on the property tax bill, so every provincial dollar that replaces a dollar of debt also removes years of interest on it.
I wouldn’t let a contribution expand the scope or pull later phases forward, and any change in scope should come back to council as its own decision with its own price. To show how a contribution was applied, I’d want staff to report it in the capital budget, naming the project account it went to, the debt it replaced and the change to the forecast tax levy.
A year later, council should get a check against actual results showing whether borrowing and the tax impact fell by the amount promised. If the savings don’t show up on your tax bill, you deserve to know why.
Source: Business Case P-57, capital budget table (debenture financing)
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
Would you permit ALPR data collected in your municipality to be shared with other police services, federal agencies, or entities outside Canada?
No, not by default, and not through a standing agreement with any vendor or police service. Data collected here should stay with the department that collected it unless a specific request, with its own legal basis, says otherwise.
"The data will only be used for its stated purpose" has already failed in Canada without anyone acting in bad faith. In 2012, British Columbia's privacy commissioner found that Victoria police's ALPR data, run on an RCMP-shared system, was being passed to the RCMP and kept past the point its stated purpose, checking plates against a stolen-vehicle and violation list, was served; the province forced the RCMP to reconfigure the system to delete that data instead. A federal contractor's network was separately breached in 2019, exposing more than a million licence-plate images collected under a different federal program; over ten thousand were confirmed leaked, some more than a decade old, and a 2022 federal privacy finding held the government responsible even though the contractor's own network was the actual point of failure. This survey names Flock Safety as one vendor selling this kind of system, and reporting in the United States has documented tens of thousands of its cameras searched directly by outside agencies, on exactly the kind of shared network this question is asking about.
I will not approve a program, or a vendor contract, that lets data leave the department that collected it except through a specific request tied to an active investigation or a court order. No standing agreement hands data to another police service. No federal agency gets default access. And nothing crosses the border to any entity outside Canada: once it does, it's outside the reach of Canadian courts and Canadian privacy law entirely. That distrust runs both directions. Government should not get to misuse this kind of data, and government should not get to hand a private company permission to compile it either, for its own use or anyone else's.
Climate Action London questionnaire
It is a priority to improve London Transit service by having 15 minute service frequency during peak weekday hours (maximum headway) on all main arterial routes while maintaining 10 minute service frequency on Rapid Transit routes. 15 minute service frequency is comparable to service in cities like Halifax and Kitchener-Waterloo. Additionally, London Transit should work to eliminate neighbourhood gaps where residents are not within 400m walking distance of a regularly service bus stop.
Neither agree nor disagree. Frequent buses are worth having where people actually ride them. A 15-minute peak standard on every arterial, plus a stop within 400 metres of every home, is a citywide expansion that has to be paid for every year in buses, operators, and subsidy.
London Transit is already adding service hours under its 2024-2027 business plan, and Rapid Transit is being built for buses every five or ten minutes. For 2026, LTC trimmed $700,000 from its City funding request because fuel and insurance costs came in lower than budgeted, without touching a single approved service hour. That is the standard I want applied to any new spending too: match the dollars to the real cost, not to a blanket target.
I will support frequency where the riders are there and the tax bill can carry it, corridor by corridor. I will vote no on a blanket citywide standard that skips that test.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
London faces an urgent health and homelessness crisis. Residents, employees and businesses also have concerns about violence, property crime, public disorder and confidence in public spaces. These conditions require related but distinct responses. What actions would you support in each area, and what responsibilities should fall to the City, police, the health system, other orders of government and community partners?
Public disorder and property crime call for enforcement. Public drug use is already illegal; residents expect police to actually enforce that, rather than let years of informal tolerance stand in for policy. Every park and public space should stay open and usable for every Londoner, so encampments get cleared rather than tolerated indefinitely.
London already spends roughly $16 million a year on homelessness and shelter, with tens of millions more from partners. Before adding to that, I want proof the current dollars are producing results, not just a bigger number to point to.
On addiction and health policy, the City has a role too: it holds three of eleven seats on Middlesex-London Health Unit's Board of Health, and its zoning decided where London's supervised consumption site could locate. I'd use that role to push dollars toward recovery and treatment that actually gets people off drugs, rather than facilities built around managing continued use. What the City doesn't do, and shouldn't try to duplicate, is deliver clinical treatment itself; that's hospitals, CMHA, and the province.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The Best Defense Conference is an annual Canadian defense industry trade fair held at the city owned RBC Place London.
Do you think hosting a trade fair for arms manufacturers and dealers is consistent with the civic values of our city?
Would you support a request from City Council to the Board of RBC Place to discontinue hosting this event?
London has a real defence manufacturing presence. General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada builds armoured combat vehicles here, employs a significant number of Londoners, and just landed a multi-billion-dollar federal contract for a new armoured vehicle fleet. That's a legitimate local industry we rely on for protecting our sovereignty.
I wouldn't support council asking the RBC Place board to cancel the event either, and the reason goes beyond this one case. The moment government starts making subjective values judgments instead of sticking to objective ones based on law, it's picked up a double-edged sword. That sword doesn't stay pointed at whoever's unpopular today. Councils change, majorities change, and a power used to shut down an industry one council doesn't like gets turned against a different industry, or a different group of people, the next time the politics shift. Once you've established that council can ban a lawful business from a public venue because it disapproves, nobody's safe from that logic being turned on them eventually, including people who cheered it on the first time.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
Which campus components would you support proceeding with, modifying, deferring, or cancelling, and which remain undecided? Please identify the needs, capacity, safety, cost, or alternatives evidence informing your position, and what could change it. Would you seek a current component-level cost schedule and the supporting assessments before further approvals?
I support proceeding with the core training facilities: the main training building and drill hall, scenario simulation, the indoor and outdoor ranges, and the burn tower. P-57 says the training sites in Hamilton, Mississauga, York and Windsor are at capacity, and so is the Ontario Police College. It also says tactical and K9 officers often get called out of training for high-risk calls. We don't want our London tactical officers on a range in Hamilton when lives are at stake and every moment counts.
I’m undecided on the later items, including the public fire safety village, the driving track and fleet storage, because no cost for any single component exists yet. Before further approvals I’d require the component-level cost schedule along with the consultant’s feasibility study, which CTV reported council never saw when it chose the site. A clear cost per component, or a shared regional option that costs less, could change my position on any piece.
Sources: Business Case P-57 (alternatives, Stage 1 contents) · Phase 2 list · CTV News London, July 2025
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (Bill 60) gives the provincial municipal affairs and housing minister the power to create a business corporation to take over water and sewage services from municipalities. Although amendments now require such corporations to remain publicly owned, they are not required to operate on a not-for-profit basis. Affected municipalities would have to transfer all their water and wastewater assets, staff, debt, contracts and infrastructure to the new body. The new corporation would set water rates for municipal residents. This model would result in reduced democratic accountability and transparency as decisions about rates, investments, and operations would be made by a corporate board rather than directly by elected council; control will be transferred to the province; and outsourcing to private firms will be enabled. Legally, the Province can impose the model on municipalities it designates. Politically, at least at this stage, the government is seeking voluntary participants before using its broader statutory powers.
Do you support keeping water & sanitation publicly owned through direct control by municipalities?
Will you oppose the provisions of this legislation that threaten to reduce control of water and sanitation by municipalities?
Bill 60 is aimed at exactly this: giving the province more room to take municipal water and sanitation systems out of local hands. I want that decision staying with London council, not shifted to Toronto or handed to a province-run corporation. If Bill 60 provisions move in that direction, I'll oppose them. Direct municipal control means the people using the system and paying for it are the ones deciding how it's run, not a provincial appointee who never has to answer to a London taxpayer.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
London now has a new Downtown Plan. Which elements would you prioritize and what results should Londoners expect to see during the next Council term? Please address the downtown business environment, public spaces, housing and office conversions, cultural and civic destinations, safety, transportation and implementation accountability.
Council endorsed a 58-action, 10-year plan called Downtown Reimagined in June 2026, built around four priorities: a river district, better public spaces, building on the UNESCO City of Music designation, and a proposed downtown coordinating authority, sometimes called a Downtown Revitalization Authority.
I'd prioritize two things this term: the public-space upgrades, since that work can start without a new funding structure, and downtown safety, since feeling uneasy or unsafe, along with traffic and parking, is the most common reason I hear for avoiding downtown. Public drug use is already illegal. Residents expect police to actually enforce that, rather than let years of informal tolerance stand in for policy. Enforcement standards don't change block by block, but the evidence right now points to downtown needing strict enforcement, officers responding to public drug use the way they would any other offence, and every public space staying open and usable for everyone.
The proposed authority is where caution is warranted: Council endorsed only the concept; mandate, budget, and funding model are still undefined, and I won't support creating or funding it until the scope and a hard budget cap are made public. Housing and office conversions downtown make sense; that's exactly where the London Plan already allows the height and density this city needs, so long as projects stay inside those designated limits rather than becoming the excuse for one-off exceptions elsewhere in the city.
Changes to downtown parking, curb space, and transit access get judged like any project anywhere: proven effect on how people actually get around, not just what a plan assumes.
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
Protecting farmland and agricultural use on Woodhull Road?
We had our own struggle with a zoning change here on Longwoods Road, but it wasn't quite the same situation.
Your case is a tricky one. As a generational farmer, I know how much of a farm family's life is tied up in the land. And I'm also a strong proponent of personal property rights, so when it comes to that time, and a farmer needs to sell to fund their retirement, they need to have that option. But the key here is the zoning. What a city councillor can do is make sure the rules that protect a rural community get followed.
Here's my understanding of the situation: Council adopted the urban growth boundary expansion last December, and Woodhull Road is in it. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (provincial) gives the final approval, and as of this week, the Ontario registry still showed it before the Minister. The expansion amends the official plan, and zoning is a separate by-law. Nothing can be built that the zoning doesn't allow, so anyone who wants to build something contrary to the zoning has to apply for a rezoning, and council can only approve a rezoning that the official plan permits. The expansion opens the door to those rezoning requests, but each one still needs its own vote at council. That vote is where our voices count now.
But I need to be up-front about the limits. A councillor has one vote on a council of fifteen. I can't approve or refuse a rezoning on my own, and the final approval of the expansion sits with the provincial Minister. And, as you know all too well, once a developer appeals, the odds are against residents. The Auditor General of Ontario found the tribunal allowed about 90% of the proposed developments appealed to it.
According to the tribunal's August 2025 decision on the small-lot house by the Dingman Creek corridor, city staff had recommended approval, council refused it anyway, and the tribunal allowed the developer's appeal after finding it met the provincial and London Plan tests. So, any arguments I'd make would be based on these plans. You can see one such argument I've made here: https://millartime.substack.com/p/the-proposed-4402-colonel-talbot (which was sent to our current councillor and ultimately ignored).
If I'm elected, I'd move a motion asking staff to report on what a rezoning here would do to the properties and farms around it, and I'd push to have that report public before any rezoning request near us goes to a planning meeting, to use as support for keeping prime farmland for agricultural use. Since 2024, neighbours generally can't start an appeal themselves, so I'd be at the planning committee whenever this area is on the agenda, and I'd help get your concerns on the record, in writing and in person, before the vote. And if council refuses a rezoning and the developer appeals, I'd push for council to gather planning and agricultural evidence to defend the decision. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-20.)