Where I stand on City spending, contracts and accountability
Here is every answer I've given on the record about City spending, contracts and accountability, 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.
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
If ALPR procurement, renewal, or expansion (e.g. contracts with vendors such as Flock Safety, Genetec, or Motorola Solutions) came before council or the police services board, how would you vote?
I would vote against any fixed ALPR network and against any procurement or contract, including with Flock Safety, Genetec, or Motorola Solutions, that expands London toward one. Flock Safety in particular has a documented pattern in the United States: agencies outside a customer's own department gained access to its cross-jurisdictional lookup network despite the company's own policies saying otherwise. A vendor's privacy promises are not a substitute for a hard limit written into the contract, the bylaw, and the system's own code. Any contract has to make the code source-available to the City, either under a non-disclosure agreement or through a forensic audit by a third party of the City's choosing, paid for by the vendor. That floor is non-negotiable: a vendor unwilling to meet it doesn't get the contract.
Renewal of the existing mobile program is a separate question, but it's still a contract. The same code-access floor applies, plus independent proof that the current retention and access rules are actually being followed, not just restated.
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.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
City procurement must be open and fair. Taxpayers have the right to see every bid, every winning price, and every conflict of interest — before the contract is signed, not after. Too often, contracts favour the recipients while placing an undue burden on taxpayers.
Will you support a full review of procurement policies to ensure contracts are fair and do not unduly burden taxpayers while favouring recipients — and will you commit to publishing all bids, evaluations, and awards proactively, with mandatory conflict disclosure, without requiring an FOI request?
I'll push for both. A single councillor can't rewrite procurement policy alone, but I'll vote for a full review and keep pushing until competitive bidding is the default and the paperwork is public before the money moves.
Right now, staff can approve contracts up to six million dollars without a council vote, and council never even sees a report on anything under $133,800. Below that line, taxpayers only learn what happened if someone files a Freedom of Information request, and even then pages can come back redacted. Bids, evaluations, awards, and conflict disclosures should be published proactively, not dug out after the fact.
Any vendor deal that needs basic facts like cost, scope, or conflicts kept quiet is a deal I'd vote against.
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.
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.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
London's budgets have been infiltrated by ideological frameworks with no measurable outcomes — ESG methods that major banks have now largely abandoned, and DEI hiring policies that can pass over the best-qualified candidate because of the wrong skin colour. A city must hire the best people at the best price, not satisfy a fad.
Will you commit to hiring and contracting based on qualifications and merit, and will you publicly oppose any hiring policy that weighs an applicant's race, sex, or ideology over their competence?
Yes. The City should hire and contract with the best person or firm for the job, at the best price and service for taxpayers. I oppose weighing race, sex, or any other identity category over qualifications and results, for anyone, in any direction. Sorting people by group instead of judging them on their own merits is the problem, whichever group ends up favoured. ESG frameworks in procurement and investment get judged by that standard too: if a methodology doesn't produce a measurably better outcome for London taxpayers than the plain merit-based alternative, it doesn't belong in a City contract or budget line. Hire and contract on competence and results, and publish the criteria so residents can see the City is actually following its own rule.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should do more to combat climate change.
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.
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.
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
Ontario's strong-mayor legislation gives the Mayor of London enhanced authority in areas including the municipal budget, senior administration and matters connected to provincial priorities. If you are a candidate for Mayor: How would you use these powers, when would you choose not to use them, and what standards of transparency and accountability would you apply? If you are a candidate for Council: How should Council respond when strong-mayor powers are exercised, and how would you use your role as a councillor to provide effective scrutiny and accountability?
A mayoral override belongs to genuine emergencies.
When a mayor actually uses an override, council's job is to make it cost something politically. The Act already requires the mayor's written reasons be made public; council should hold a real, open debate on that record before it's forgotten, and use the two-thirds override itself where the case for it holds up.
My own standard as a councillor doesn't change based on what the mayor could do. Every vote I cast needs to stand on its own merits, and if council's actual policy judgment ever got overridden, I'd say so publicly the moment it happened. Then it will fall to the voters to determine the consequences.
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
What limits, if any, would you require on ALPR data: retention periods, access controls, independent audits, public reporting?
Ontario's own Information and Privacy Commissioner published detailed guidance on police ALPR use in December 2024: delete non-hit data immediately, log every manual search with the officer's name and reason, run periodic independent audits, and publish the retention period, camera locations, and policy publicly. I would hold London to that standard rather than to something weaker.
For non-hit data, the Commissioner's standard is immediate deletion: a scan that doesn't match a stolen vehicle, wanted plate, or similar alert must be purged the moment that's confirmed. Toronto's public policy instead keeps all scans, hits and non-hits alike, for 365 days before purging. That is a real gap between what the province's own privacy watchdog recommends and what a major Ontario police service actually does, and it is exactly why I want an independent audit confirming what London actually retains and deletes, reported publicly on a fixed schedule. The cost of that audit belongs to the vendor selling the system, not to taxpayers.
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.
London Decides 2026 questionnaire
Pick the issue you most want to be known for. Where do you feel torn on it, and what is the strongest argument against your own position?
Fiscal responsibility. No wasteful spending, full transparency on every dollar, and no tax hikes. What tears at me is saying no. A resident brings me something worth doing, and the math says the city can't afford it without raising taxes, and I still have to say no.
Here's the case against me. Refusing new revenue can mean deferring maintenance, and deferred infrastructure gets more expensive the longer a city waits. The same taxpayers pay for it eventually, just later, and for a bigger repair bill.
Prioritization is the fix. The full costing that I will be pushing for shows council the real cost of everything, so failing roads and pipes get funded first, and elective extras get delayed or cut.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
What is one thing the City currently spends money on that you believe should receive less funding, and where would you redirect that money?
I wouldn't name a program for a cut without first seeing its service results, legal obligations, and alternatives.
I would reduce funding for activities that can't show a clear public benefit or measurable outcome, beginning with discretionary initiatives rather than core safety, roads, water, transit, libraries, or emergency services.
Any redirected money should be aimed first at renewal of existing infrastructure, and relief from the tax levy for taxpayers. The principle is simple: fund necessities, measure discretionary spending, and stop paying for work that can't show what residents received. The difficult part is forcing the necessary transparency at City Hall to make the correct decisions, but I believe it can be done, with the right leadership.
Water fluoridation candidate question (from a resident)
In light of the newer evidence concerning neurodevelopment, will you support an independent and transparent reassessment of London's water-fluoridation policy?
Reassessment. Yes, an independent and transparent one, with everything published so residents can read it for themselves, and the strongest arguments presented fairly from both sides.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Measurable accountability is the difference between a well-run city and a money pit. A lack of clear metrics leads to frivolous spending, possible corruption, decaying core services, and a public that stops trusting — and stops voting for — its elected officials.
Will you require every department to publish clear, measurable performance metrics tied to spending, and what consequence will you impose when a department fails to meet them?
Again, not something I can unilaterally require, but I'd like every department to publish clear metrics tied to what it actually spends. Right now, the pattern runs the other way.
London's Climate Change Reserve Fund held $1.192 million by the end of 2024, with only about $225,000 actually reaching a project and roughly $967,000 sitting unallocated against a real project backlog, and there's still no clear public reporting tying that fund's spending to a measured result.
On consequences: a department that misses its published metrics should have that specific line frozen or cut at the next budget and not quietly carried forward. I won't pretend that a councillor can fire a City manager directly, but I can vote the budget line, and I will vote it down when the numbers don't back up the spending.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Londoners have been hit with repeated property tax increases that far outpace inflation — a compounded tax levy increase of roughly 26% over four years — driven by overspending and frivolous spending on non-essential items. Council has shown it will not discipline itself without a hard rule.
Will you support a binding policy that any property tax increase above the rate of inflation requires a public referendum, and what specific spending lines would you cut first to stay under that ceiling?
I would, but my own standard already goes further: I won't support any property tax increase during my term, for any reason, not just increases above inflation.
I've also drafted the Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers bylaw, which permanently cuts council pay for any levy increase at all through this whole coming term, then only for increases above inflation after that.
On specific spending cuts, the Climate Change Reserve Fund already has about $967,000 sitting unallocated, so I'd reject any push to restore its contributions to the old $1 million a year until that backlog clears. The Community Arts Investment Program, about $800,000 a year, ranks below essential services like roads, water, and safety, and it's the kind of discretionary spending that goes first if push comes to shove.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should try to keep property taxes low, even if it means fewer services for residents.
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.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
London's senior management ranks have expanded faster than the services they deliver, while taxpayers fund salaries, benefits, and pensions that exceed what the private sector earns for comparable work.
How will you reduce the excessive bureaucracy whose compensation goes beyond private-sector earnings — and how many management positions do you believe are redundant, with what specific reductions?
City compensation, pay and benefits together, should match an equivalent private-sector role. A Fraser Institute study from January 2026 found Ontario's public sector already carries roughly a 7.9% wage premium over comparable private-sector work, on top of far better pension and job security odds.
I won't invent a specific headcount number without a real organizational review. That's exactly the kind of unaccountable guess that should invite skepticism. What I can commit to is voting for an independent management-structure audit in year one, with its findings and recommended reductions published in full, then voting the specific reductions that audit actually supports. A number invented without that work behind it wouldn't survive contact with reality, and Londoners deserve better than a guess dressed up as a plan.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The City of London, London Fire Department, and London Police Service are working together to build a new Emergency Services Campus. The campus will support the operational and training needs of first responders, improve regional emergency preparedness and create new spaces for public safety education. A portion of this quarter billion-dollar budget ($200-$270M) will be directed to scenario simulation and indoor and outdoor firing ranges, measures that support more militarized and aggressive policing infrastructure.
Will you commit to demanding transparency about the portion of this Emergency Services Campus budget devoted to policing, as opposed to fire, dispatch, EMS, HAZMAT response?
Will you commit to reducing the budget for the Emergency Services Campus by the amount that would be used for policing?
I'll commit to demanding real transparency on how the Emergency Services Campus budget breaks down between policing, fire, dispatch, EMS, and HAZMAT. Taxpayers funding a $200 to $270 million project are entitled to see exactly where that money goes, line by line, not a single combined number.
I won't commit to cutting the policing portion in advance, and that's regardless of whether it's even legally possible to carve one department's share out of a joint capital project after the fact. Firing ranges and scenario simulation are training infrastructure. That's how officers get and keep the skills to do the job safely, for themselves and for the public they respond to. Wanting transparency on where the money goes and pre-committing to slash a training budget are two different things.
Platform (ward9.online homepage)
Taxpayer focused. Compensate accordingly.
In November 2025, council voted 9 to 6 to set their next-term pay at $94,222, almost 40% above what they were paid when they cast that vote. The City's share of your tax bill went up about 20% over the same three years. The fix: a direct-democracy bylaw that cuts councillor pay when the municipal tax on your home rises faster than inflation. Drafted in public. Read it, suggest changes, watch the audit trail.
London Decides 2026 questionnaire
What is the one thing you most want to have changed in London by the end of this term? Tell us what a resident would be able to see in 2030 that shows you did it, and what you would be willing to give up to get it.
Full costing, before every vote, every time. Right now, city staff can approve contracts up to six million dollars without a single council vote, and council never even sees a report on anything under $133,800. Below that line, taxpayer money moves and the people elected to watch it don't find out unless someone files a freedom-of-information request, and even then the documents can come back redacted. By 2030, any Londoner should be able to open any city spending item and see the real cost before the money moves. Getting there means making enemies of whoever likes it this way: staff who'd rather not itemize, and any mayor who'd rather manage the message than open the books. I'm fine being the one who keeps asking the question nobody in that room wants asked.
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.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
Private contractors are more efficient than municipal workers at delivering most municipal services.
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.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
London's growth depends on roads, transit, water and wastewater systems, emergency services and community facilities. How would you determine which investments proceed first, pay for growth fairly and maintain competitive property taxes?
Growth should pay for growth: a subdivision developer covers the roads, water, and servicing capacity a project requires before it's approved, rather than residents living with the shortfall afterward. Existing taxpayers shouldn't backstop growth they didn't ask for.
On sequencing, I'd prioritize water, wastewater, and emergency services capacity already falling behind population growth over new discretionary projects.
Property taxes stay competitive by controlling spending, and I have a specific mechanism for it: my PACT (Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers) bylaw ties councillor and mayoral pay directly to the tax levy, so every point council raises taxes becomes a permanent cut to their own pay. Council just voted itself a next-term raise almost 40% above what they were paid the day they voted for it, while property taxes rose more than 25% over the same multi-year budget. PACT raises the stakes for a council that would burden taxpayers with even higher rates.
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
Anything else you would like voters concerned about mass surveillance to know?
I support policing, and I support London's existing mobile ALPR program under strict conditions: a human operating it, immediate deletion of anything that isn't a hit, and an audit trail that's actually checked. I want more officers visible in neighbourhoods too. Fixed, always-on cameras are a different category of tool: infrastructure that watches everyone who passes, all the time, whether or not there's ever a reason to.
The test I apply to any new government power is the same one I'd apply to a tax or a bylaw: does it solve a real, demonstrated problem, is the burden on residents proportionate to what it actually buys them, and would it still hold up in four years once the initial promises get checked against results. Fixed ALPR fails that test because it inverts the normal order: police are supposed to build a reason to look at someone specific, and a network of cameras logs everyone first and looks for a reason afterward.
That same standard applies to private companies, not just government. A vendor holding this data on the City's behalf is the same problem in different hands. A single, justified look at a single plate is a power police can earn, case by case, with a reason on record. An always-on network that watches everyone by default is not that kind of power at all, and no audit or vendor safeguard changes that. This is something I vehemently oppose.
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)
Nature London 2026 candidate questionnaire
Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their purpose? What improvements would you recommend?
I can't give you a real answer on whether the Guidelines are too strict, not strict enough, or right where they should be. That takes seeing years of outcomes: how many Environmental Impact Studies got rejected or scaled back, how many Environmentally Significant Areas came close to losing protection, how many projects were stalled or abandoned, or how monitoring actually played out. None of that gets published in a form residents or council can review, so nobody outside city hall can make that call either.
I'd push for the same improvement as the last question: full transparency. Publish outcomes so residents and council can eventually judge whether they're working.
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
What role should public consultation play before surveillance technology is acquired? Would you commit to a public privacy impact assessment?
Yes. A privacy impact assessment should be public before council votes, not filed away after, and residents should get a real comment period long enough to actually respond, not a notice posted the week of the vote.
London Police Service's existing mobile ALPR program already went through a privacy impact assessment before deployment. That is the right bar. I would apply the same bar publicly, in advance, to anything new: the specific problem the system is meant to solve, what was tried instead, and why this tool and this scale are proportionate to that problem, not just proportionate to what a vendor is selling.
The City having source-available access under contract doesn't mean the public has it. On top of that floor, I would push for the source code to be published outright before any contract is signed, so independent experts and any resident who wants to can review it while a vote can still be changed by what they find. Most vendors will refuse that. Where full public release can't be negotiated, I would still want an independent expert to examine the code and publish their findings before the vote.
I oppose a fixed ALPR system outright. No privacy impact assessment or public process changes that. For the mobile program already in place, renewal carries the same conditions as any new contract: the code-access floor already described, a public privacy impact assessment, and a genuine public comment period, all in advance and all on the record before the vote. Skip any of those steps on a renewal, and I vote no regardless of what the system itself does.
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.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should spend more on social housing, even if it means tax increases or cuts to other services.
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.
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.
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.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
The mayor should never overturn council decisions.
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.
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?
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
If a new supportive housing project was proposed in a neighbourhood where many residents opposed it, how would you respond? What commitments are you prepared to make tonight that voters can hold you accountable for?
I don't believe a developer or a bureaucrat downtown should get to decide what a neighbourhood has to live with. If a supportive housing project came to a neighbourhood that didn't want it, it's my job to be the voice of the people living there and represent their will.
But the truth is that provincial law limits how far a council can go to block a housing project just because a neighbourhood opposes it. I won't tell any neighbourhood that I can hand them a guaranteed veto, because that would be a promise I couldn't keep, and I don't make those.
What I can promise is that before a project like this comes anywhere near a vote, residents get the actual plan on the table: who runs it, what security looks like, what happens when something goes wrong, and how they can hold someone accountable after it opens. I'll use every real tool a councillor has, like site conditions, servicing requirements, and a public record that actually reflects what residents said, to make sure a project that goes forward reflects what the neighbourhood raised. And if I think a project is being forced through without honestly addressing what residents brought forward, I'll vote against it and say so publicly, regardless of the final outcome.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
What experience or background do you bring that distinguishes you from the other candidates running in your race?
I've drafted the proposed Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers bylaw, which cuts city council's pay whenever taxes rise faster than inflation, and I published it open-source for anyone to read and suggest amendments to.
I work in diverse fields, from growing and selling berries and fresh produce, to developing apps and helping people with their computers.
And every promise, and every published statement I've made during this campaign, is public and searchable on my website, so you can hold me to my word.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Would you prioritize any municipal needs over reducing or limiting increases in municipal property taxes?
Yes, for genuine needs. No, for luxuries.
If a real need comes up, I'd rather find it inside the existing budget by cutting lower-priority spending than reach for a tax increase. I won't vote for a property tax increase, for any reason.
London's problem is how the money already collected gets spent, not how much more we could collect.
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.
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.
Climate Action London questionnaire
The City of London should implement a mandatory lobbyist registry. It would help promote public trust, prevent conflicts of interest and ensure fair access. Over 15 Ontario municipalities have mandatory lobbyist registries, many of which have low cost solutions. For example Guelph has implemented a solution costing less than $25,000 per year.
Strongly agree. Residents should be able to see who is paid to influence City Hall. Guelph's mandatory registry, running since October 2024, was built in-house and is expected to cost $10,000 to $20,000 a year, comfortably under the $25,000 figure cited above. Hamilton has run one since 2015, and Burlington's own City Clerk administers its registry, both without a large new office. London can copy a working model instead of building one from scratch.
I will support a mandatory lobbyist registry so meetings that shape planning files, contracts, and by-laws are on the public record.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
On May 13, 2025, The City of London approved the ReconciliAction Plan intended to guide the City's actions over the next decade towards truth, justice, and reconciliation by supporting the implementation of the Calls to Action. What specific action(s) will you prioritize to move forward? How will you do this?
London should comply with the obligations it has already committed to, and I won't push for more on top of that.
Council approved a ten-year, 155-action plan in May 2025, and the metrics and timeline for those commitments are still being developed.
Finish that accountability work so the public can see what's complete or delayed, and what the true cost is.
Anything still open to change gets examined against an equal-treatment and taxpayer burden standard, with results reported in public.
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.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should spend more to improve its public transit service, even if doing so leads to higher fares.
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 and District Labour Council questionnaire
Would you support the City of London divesting from municipal water / hydro resources by way of a Municipal Services Corporation?
London Hydro already operates at arm's length from City Hall. It's a corporation with its own board, and the City is its sole shareholder, receiving an annual dividend. Any further change to how these services are structured needs to clear one bar for me: does it actually improve service and value for the ratepayer, without quietly moving costs or debt off one column of the City's books and onto another.
Water and wastewater are different. The City runs those directly today, and I'm cautious about moving an essential service Londoners can't choose an alternative for further from direct public accountability. If a restructuring proposal ever comes to council, I'd want to see the real financial case and exactly what oversight ratepayers keep before I'd support it.
Hikma Public Affairs Council candidate statement
Hikma Public Affairs Council candidate statement
I'm Matt Millar, a third-generation farmer and an IT specialist, and I've lived in Ward 9 my whole life.
I'm running for council in Ward 9 because City Hall keeps raising property taxes faster than most families' paycheques grow, and I won't vote for another increase during my term, for any reason. And I drafted the proposed Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers (PACT) bylaw to tie City Council pay to our property taxes.
I want to make it faster and cheaper to build housing here, so families aren't priced out of their own neighbourhoods.
I believe every law-abiding Londoner deserves to be safe and protected, especially in the place they call home.
My website ward9.online is where you can learn more about me or ask me questions on the record, and I'm always glad to hear from residents directly.
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.
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.
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.
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
When Council considers investments in fire protection, what factors should determine appropriate firefighter staffing, apparatus and station infrastructure?
I think the biggest factor should be actual demand. That means looking at population growth, call volume, and response-time data by area, instead of relying on historical allocation or whichever part of the city has always gotten attention. If Ward 9 and other growing areas are seeing more calls and slower response coverage, that should show up directly in where new stations, apparatus, and staffing get prioritized.
I also think council needs to look at whether a dollar spent gets the most protection for the community, which means being open to shared-facility or co-located models where it makes sense. And staffing decisions should be driven by actual workload and safe response levels.
I don't think fire protection is a place to cut corners to save money, but I also think every dollar needs to be justified by what it actually buys in coverage and safety, not by tradition or politics.
*Section 4 — Labour Relations & Accountability*
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.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
A city cannot function without public order. Police are increasingly forced to deal with "revolving door" criminals and "free of fear" policies that may hide offenders rather than hold them accountable.
How do you think policing can be made more effective while dealing with "revolving door" criminals and "free of fear" policies that hide offenders?
The revolving door for repeat offenders comes from bail, sentencing, and Crown discretion, which are all provincial and federal matters.
Council does control the City's Free of Fear Services for All Policy, which blocks staff from reporting a resident's immigration status to police or CBSA. I oppose selective enforcement of any law. If there is a problem with a law on the books, the law should be amended. Until that happens, the law must be enforced.
To me, "free of fear" should be the natural state for law-abiding Londoners in their communities. Unfortunately, many don't even feel safe in their own homes. My main law and order concern is ensuring police have the will and capacity to act on pervasive and ongoing crime affecting Ward 9 residents, like frequent overnight break-ins. I will also push our four of seven Police Services Board appointees to make recurring hotspots a stated priority.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Elected officials have been publicly smeared, subjected to unsubstantiated ethics complaints that would not survive a court of law, and — in the case of the "Whole of Community Response" homelessness planning — told by staff not to attend vital meetings. City staff and outside groups, including non-Canadian-funded organizations, have increasingly attempted to steer council toward decisions that serve their own interests rather than citizens'.
Will you commit to rein in staff members who overstep their boundaries and attempt to steer elected officials, repeatedly re-frame their precise questions in council, or attack them through activist groups — and will you publicly name whoever is doing it?
A major theme of my campaign is the problem of councillors deferring to staff over their constituents. Staff work for council, not the other way around.
I'll push back in public any time a report dodges the actual question asked or steers council toward staff's preferred outcome instead of answering it, and I already support publishing contracts, invoices, and reports proactively so residents can see the pattern themselves rather than take my word for it.
On naming individuals: I'll do it to the extent the law allows, when conduct is actually documented and warrants it, but not as a standing accusation against staff before any facts are established. Naming someone before the facts are in only trades one unfairness for another.
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
The Downtown Plan contains 58 actions, some of which will require new or additional municipal investment. If elected, would you support allocating additional City resources to implement the Downtown Plan? If YES: What types of investments would you prioritize? If NO: Which elements of the Plan would you not support?
I'm not comfortable giving a blanket yes or no answer to a question with so many unknown variables. It depends on the action, and the cost.
I'd prioritize the investments with a direct, measurable public benefit: safety and enforcement in the core, and cleaning and beautification that keeps the area inviting and enjoyable. Those pay for themselves in results people can experience.
What I wouldn't support is open-ended spending on things like programming and promotion, projection art, self-guided tours, late-night bus pilots, more branding for the City of Music designation, that are competing for the same dollars as core services with no way to measure what they bought.
The Downtown Plan is a roadmap, but that doesn't warrant a blank check. Every dollar allocated should be done based on merit.
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
We have seen more incidents of flooding, extreme heat and wildfire smoke in London in the last few years, and the need to adapt to a changing climate. What do you see as the most important climate-related action that you would support if you were elected and how do you envision funding it?
Protect people from the risks that are already here: flooding, extreme heat, and wildfire smoke.
The City's own 2024 progress report puts community emissions 22 percent below 2005 levels, with the 2030 target at 55 percent below.
I'm not willing to subject Londoners to undue financial hardship to hit an arbitrary target.
I won't put more money into climate programs on the strength of an emergency label alone.
The Climate Change Reserve Fund held about $1.19 million at the end of 2024, with only about $225,000 reaching a project and the rest sitting unallocated.
Keep core infrastructure reliable through the capital plan and partnerships where they're available, with the full cost published before any vote. All spending has to pass the same evidence, lifecycle-cost, and result test.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
Do you agree with a raise to the minimum wage and ten paid sick days for all workers? Should the City be a living wage employer?
My opinion on minimum wage is moot since it's set by the provincial government. Where I do have a vote is over what the City itself pays.
Council's own November 2025 vote disgusts me. Councillors voted 9 to 6 to peg their pay to the 70th percentile of London full-time income, which sets next-term pay at over $94,000. That is almost 40% above the $67,420 they were being paid when they cast that vote, and signals that they believe they deserve to earn more than 70% of full-time working Londoners. I definitely would have opposed that, and I've drafted the PACT bylaw that cuts councillor pay whenever council raises the tax levy.
On the employment side, I want City compensation, for staff and for the contractors the City hires, measured against private-sector equivalents, taking both pay and benefits into consideration. Public sector workers should be well compensated, but it should not be more lucrative than a private-sector equivalent. On sick leave specifically, City of London unionized staff already accrue 1 sick day per month up to a cap of 85 days under CUPE Local 101's current agreement. Ontario law only guarantees private-sector workers 3 unpaid days a year, nothing paid, and, nationally, only 64% of employees have access to any paid sick leave at all. That gap is worth being honest about.
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
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
Explain your plan for addressing the climate crisis and comment on specific details to date on how London City Council has worked on environmental issues.
London declared a climate emergency in 2019. The City's own 2025 progress report shows corporate greenhouse gas emissions rose 4 percent the previous year, even as Council approved a million dollars annually for the Climate Change Reserve Fund and then cut that down to $192,000. By the end of 2024 the fund held $1.19 million, but only about $225,000 of it had reached an actual project, while a backlog of requests worth well over a million dollars sat waiting behind it. Money sitting unused and emissions still climbing is not the record of a plan that's working.
Where I'll support spending is on projects with a plan, a cost, and a real measurable benefit attached before council approves the money: stormwater capacity, tree canopy, and energy retrofits on City buildings that pay for themselves in avoided utility costs or provide a real tangible benefit to Londoners. Those are projects I can defend to a taxpayer because the return is provable. Before any new dollar goes toward the reserve fund, I want a plan that names the result it buys and how we'll know it worked.
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.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario lobby for agendas — climate mandates, density targets, and social policy — that local voters never asked for, while councils pay membership fees for the privilege of being lobbied.
How familiar are you with the programs pushed by the FCM and AMO, and how will you evaluate their cost/benefit — not just in city taxes, but in the provincial and federal tax dollars they also consume?
I know the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as municipal associations. I haven't worked through every program either one promotes, and I'll be honest about that.
But I will judge the cost and benefit of what they ask of London.
FCM channels large federal climate and housing dollars through funds like the Green Municipal Fund, with project rules and often requiring London taxpayer funds.
AMO lobbies the province on housing supply, growth infrastructure, and homelessness spending, while warning that health and social costs get shifted onto property taxes.
If an agenda brings climate targets, density templates, or social-policy packages decided somewhere else, I will meet it with a heaping dose of skepticism and ask what it costs in city taxes and in provincial and federal dollars, what outcome it claims, and whether Londoners benefit from it.
Association pressure does not shape my decisions.
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.)
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
London has signed onto international frameworks — the Global Covenant of Mayors, UN-aligned "human rights" initiatives, and global NGO agendas — that impose obligations, reporting burdens, and data-sharing commitments on the city without any mandate from local voters. These commitments are made by staff and a handful of councillors, then treated as binding on everyone.
How will you ensure that offshore-funded groups do not exert undue influence over London's budget, the privacy of residents' data, or commitments that conflict with Canadian law — and that they cannot bypass local control through well-organized campaigns such as the highly controversial "Climate Emergency"? And will you support withdrawing from organizations that push agendas contrary to Londoners' expressed wishes?
Londoners decide for London. I will reject outright any attempt by offshore-funded groups, international frameworks, or global NGO campaigns to steer our budget, grab residents' data, or lock the City into commitments that conflict with Canadian law. Labels like a "climate emergency" do not get a free pass on spending or policy. Every dollar and every data share still needs a local case, a cost, and a benefit to Ward 9 residents and all Londoners.
I will also support withdrawing from organizations that push agendas contrary to what Londoners have asked for. If a membership mainly exports decision-making and reporting burdens while importing priorities set somewhere else, it does not belong. Local control is not optional.
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
What would you do about persistent boulevard/weed neglect and unresolved property theft in Ward 9?
You're certainly not the only one to bring these issues up, and I share your concern. The camera case is especially egregious, knowing where the stolen item was but completely dropping it anyway.
A councillor can't explicitly direct the police, but we do have a say in the budget, and council effectively controls four of the seven Police Service Board seats. Board duties under the Community Safety and Policing Act include hiring and firing the chief, running the chief's annual performance review, and approving the operating and capital budget. The board also sets the service's objectives and priorities as part of its strategic plan, and the chief has to run the department within those priorities. I would advocate for strict enforcement. We can't control the courts at the provincial level, but we need to make London as inhospitable for criminals as possible.
The weeds and the boulevards are a different problem with the same shape. The City already budgets for that work, and it isn't getting done. You've called every year and gotten the same promise. That's exactly the kind of documented example I'm building into a public record of City spending priorities, so council has to answer case by case for services taxpayers already pay for and aren't getting. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-6.)
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Each term, London city council approves a 4-year multi-year budget. This past council approved a record setting 23.5% increase. This means that if a resident was paying $4000 in taxes in 2023, they will be paying just under $5000 today. Do you think that this was an appropriate level of tax increase and what level of levy increase do you think is appropriate over the course of this next 4-year term of council?
No. A multi-year tax levy increase of this scale is not something residents should be expected to accept. By the City's own numbers, this multi-year budget works out to a cumulative increase of around 25 percent on your tax bill, 8.7 percent in 2024 alone. And to add insult to injury, council voted itself a raise of almost 40 percent for the next term at the same time.
To make up for this egregious abuse of taxpayers, I won't support any levy hike that will increase an individual's tax bill over the next 4 years. On top of that, I've drafted a proposed Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers bylaw that would tie council's pay to the City's portion of Londoners' tax bill; for every percentage point it rises above inflation, council pay goes down by the same percentage. If leadership expects Londoners to sacrifice more, they can lead by example. I've invited every candidate city-wide to read and either support, oppose, or propose amendments to PACT, and it's all open source and tracked on ward9.online and GitHub.
Aside from that, growth from new homes should pay for growth. It shouldn't be an excuse to raise the rate on the people already here.
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
You're asking Londoners to vote you into a significant leadership role that will shape our community. What have you done to earn that job?
Being a city councillor isn't something you earn by jumping through the right hoops and checking the right boxes. It's up to voters to decide who has the wisdom needed to guide the city along the correct path, the skills and determination to execute, and the principles necessary to stay on course. We candidates are all here to help guide that decision.
I've lived my entire life on the farm, so I'm no stranger to dealing with variables completely out of my control, knowing that nobody will be coming to bail me out. When a farmer does something wrong, we feel the consequences immediately, and we're the ones that will be cleaning up the mess. We're also used to working on a shoestring budget, and stretching every dollar.
That is the mindset I'll bring to council, along with my background in tech. I've used my website, ward9.online, as a pilot project for novel ideas to keep Londoners connected with the political process, including a concern tracker to let me know about important issues and get my response, a promise tracker to hold me accountable, and an open-source proposed bylaw tying council pay to property tax rates that anyone can provide input to help shape. I've also provided researched, sourced arguments, based on the London Plan, against developments in the Lambeth area when residents were organizing in opposition. Unfortunately, they fell on deaf ears.
But you can be sure that a vote for me is a vote for someone ready to dig in and read the reports, ask the hard questions, account for every dollar, and stand with voters over the recommendations of City Staff, or special interests.
Climate Action London questionnaire
It is important to restore funding to the Climate Change Reserve Fund to $1m per year, as it was when it was initially created and only use the funds for genuine expenses related to mitigation and adaptation projects designed to increase London's resilience to the increasing impacts of the Climate Emergency.
Strongly disagree. London declared a climate emergency on April 23, 2019. Council's own resolution names the purpose as "naming, framing and deepening our commitment." I do not support using an emergency label to win budget lines.
Six years on, the City's own numbers do not support the label. The City's July 17, 2025 CEAP progress report shows corporate greenhouse gas emissions rose 4 percent year over year, even as Council approved $1 million a year for the Climate Change Reserve Fund for 2023-2027 and then cut planned annual contributions to $192,000. By the end of 2024 the fund held $1.192 million, and only about $225,000 of it had actually reached a project. The other $967,000 sat unallocated, with a backlog of new requests worth $1.21 million to $1.91 million waiting behind it. Money not moving and emissions still rising is not what a real emergency response looks like.
Until someone can articulate the exact criteria that justify declaring a state of emergency, and exactly how the money would be spent to produce a meaningful mitigating effect on the cause of that emergency, I am against spending taxpayer dollars that do nothing more than signal an intention to act. I would oppose putting that million back on the basis of the emergency label alone.
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
Evening and weekend transit service for Upperpoint/Riverbend?
What your son goes through, spending six hours of his day getting to and from a math class at Western, is the kind of thing a transit plan should be built to prevent.
I looked into what LTC has already said about your neighbourhood. They've flagged Kains Road and Upperpoint Boulevard as growing with serious gaps in service, and Route 22 is meant to fix that with 30-minute service at weekday and Saturday peaks and 35 to 40 minutes on evenings and Sundays. That's a concrete plan, but plans don't help anyone until they materialize into actual results.
The easy thing to do would be to promise you everything you asked for, but that wouldn't be honest. Council doesn't set LTC's routes or schedules directly, and adding on to 17B means new ongoing operating hours with no funding source attached.
What I can commit to, if elected, is raising this directly with the LTC Commission, with three specific asks: prioritize the Kains/Upperpoint piece of Route 22 (LTC's own numbers put it at one peak bus and about 2,000 service hours a year, a small piece to move up), look at whether a smaller interim shuttle could bridge the gap until Route 22 is running, and pay for either option out of the growth-related revenue that new development in a growing area like yours already generates, rather than the general tax base. Growth should fund the infrastructure it requires, everywhere in the ward.
I've also posted this as a public commitment at https://ward9.online/promises/#ltc-transit-priority, so it's on the record.
This is what I can actually stand behind as a city council candidate, and I'd rather give you that than an empty promise. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-15.)