Where I stand on council pay and the PACT bylaw
Here is every answer I've given on the record about council pay and the PACT bylaw, 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 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.
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.
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 Free Press candidate survey
What sets you apart from other candidates?
I've lived on the same Ward 9 property my whole life, as a family farmer and tech professional.
Specific to this election, I've actually drafted a bylaw that I intend to introduce if elected. The PACT bylaw is on GitHub for anyone to read, version by version, before they decide whether to support it. I also built a public tracker at ward9.online asking every council and mayoral candidate in London, not just Ward 9, to put their position on PACT on the record.
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Past members of London City Council have described the position of councillor as extremely demanding and requiring significant personal sacrifice. The most recent Resourcing Review Task Force found councillors work an average of more than 50 hours per week, including constituent correspondence, extensive meeting preparation, council and committee work, and frequent evening and weekend community events. With this in mind, why do you want to serve as a city councillor?
A 50 hour week would be a nice relaxing pace compared to a hectic harvest season. But it's not so much that I want to inject myself straight into the vipers' nest, where the status quo is designed to stifle people like me, who aren't out to make friends, and aren't there to go along to get along. I feel duty-bound to give Ward 9 a representative who will speak loudly on their behalf, look out for their best interests, and give them a clear window into what's really happening behind the scenes. No more folding to city staff. No more approving of projects because that's what City Hall wants. No more voting for a pay raise and raising taxes at the same time. If the community has an objection, it's my job to make it known.
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.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
If elected, what would be your single highest priority in your first year as Mayor / Ward Councillor?
Holding the line on property taxes. I'll vote no on any rate increase, and I'll bring the PACT bylaw forward so council's own pay drops whenever taxes outrun inflation. With their own pay on the line, a tax increase becomes a little less appealing.
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.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
What are the top 2–3 priorities in your campaign platform? How do these address the needs of low- and moderate-income Londoners?
First, taxes. I won't support a property tax rate increase during my term after the 20% increase over the past 3 years, and my proposed PACT bylaw cuts council's own pay whenever taxes go up beyond inflation. Any increase comes out of a paycheque, and renters pay it too, because a landlord's expenses show up in the rent.
Second, roads that actually move. Every hour a worker sits in gridlock, or detours around what seems like never-ending construction, is an hour taken from home or the job.
Third, safety at home. When a car or a bike gets hit overnight, somebody has to find the deductible, or the money for a new bike, before the next shift. And nobody should feel like a victim in their own neighbourhood.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Council is regularly required to balance competing priorities and limited municipal resources. What principles would guide your decisions about what the City of London should fund, what it should reduce, and what it should stop doing? What does fiscal prudence mean to you?
First, protect life, safety, and the services people cannot reasonably provide for themselves.
Second, maintain assets the City already owns before adding new commitments.
Third, require a clear public benefit, full lifecycle cost, and measurable result.
Fourth, identify who has jurisdiction and use outside funding only when it doesn't create an unfunded municipal obligation.
If a program can't meet those tests, council should reduce it, redesign it, or stop it altogether.
Fiscal prudence, to me, is being a good steward of the fruits of Londoners' labour. Never ask taxpayers for more before proving you've made the most of what they already gave you. And never ask residents to sacrifice unless you're willing to sacrifice more yourself, and that's exactly what my PACT bylaw makes unavoidable.
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.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Londoners have watched elected officials override the clearly expressed will of voters on major projects. Council ignored the public vote against the BRT, and the city is now on the hook for a bus rapid transit system that has ballooned to $454 million — up more than 50% from the original estimate, with the local taxpayer share nearly tripling. The costly bike-lane network followed the same pattern.
Will you commit to following the clearly expressed will of voters on major projects — even when it conflicts with activist pressure — and how will you determine what the majority of your ward actually wants, rather than listening only to the loudest voices?
That is my main goal. I opposed the BRT back in 2018 before it started ballooning past what residents were told to expect. Council voted it through anyway on its own authority, despite widespread public opposition. I've also presented arguments, based on the London Plan, opposing high-density developments that are unsuitable and unwanted in Ward 9.
I built ward9.online with a public concern tracker so residents can write in and see my answer go up publicly. I draft policy the same way: my proposed PACT bylaw has been open on GitHub since day one, allowing anyone to see the entire history and suggest changes.
If elected, I'd like to build an official version of the concern tracker, with verified-resident logins (allowing optional anonymity). Activist groups can organize and lobby all they want, but I represent Ward 9 residents. Not activists.
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.