Where I stand on homelessness and addiction
Here is every answer I've given on the record about homelessness and addiction, word for word, from candidate questionnaires and my replies to residents.
Don't see your question? Search below, or ask me directly and I'll answer it on the record.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
London faces an urgent health and homelessness crisis. Residents, employees and businesses also have concerns about violence, property crime, public disorder and confidence in public spaces. These conditions require related but distinct responses. What actions would you support in each area, and what responsibilities should fall to the City, police, the health system, other orders of government and community partners?
Public disorder and property crime call for enforcement. Public drug use is already illegal; residents expect police to actually enforce that, rather than let years of informal tolerance stand in for policy. Every park and public space should stay open and usable for every Londoner, so encampments get cleared rather than tolerated indefinitely.
London already spends roughly $16 million a year on homelessness and shelter, with tens of millions more from partners. Before adding to that, I want proof the current dollars are producing results, not just a bigger number to point to.
On addiction and health policy, the City has a role too: it holds three of eleven seats on Middlesex-London Health Unit's Board of Health, and its zoning decided where London's supervised consumption site could locate. I'd use that role to push dollars toward recovery and treatment that actually gets people off drugs, rather than facilities built around managing continued use. What the City doesn't do, and shouldn't try to duplicate, is deliver clinical treatment itself; that's hospitals, CMHA, and the province.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
"Safer supply" policies have seen taxpayer-funded drugs distributed for unobserved consumption, alongside open drug use, encampments, and a visible decline in public safety. Recovery and treatment must come first, and council must add pressure on the provincial and federal governments.
Do you support an end to "safer supply" being distributed for unobserved consumption by addicts, as well as open drug use — and will you support recovery programs and enforcement against open drug use and encampments that threaten public safety?
My principle is simple: nothing illegal should be permitted in any taxpayer-funded facility, or anywhere in London.
Shelters: this council considered, and in August 2026 pulled back from, a proposal that would have stopped shelters from denying entry over drug possession. I'd have opposed that proposal from the start. Drug use is already banned, at least on paper, in every shelter; I want that made a clear, permanent, city-wide rule, not left to each operator's discretion.
Safer supply is a provincial program, not something council sets, but diversion is real: London pharmacies have been documented dispensing take-home doses that get resold on the street. That's trafficking, already illegal, and I support council's own push for the province to review it.
Open drug use is already illegal, too. I expect it enforced everywhere, rather than tolerated or ignored. Encampments should be cleared; public spaces should stay open for every Londoner.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
How do you balance the needs of people experiencing homelessness with the concerns of residents and businesses?
Everyone deserves dignity.
Residents and businesses deserve safe, usable public spaces too, and those two things aren't in conflict when the system actually works.
London already runs a Coordinated Informed Response team, made up of City staff, London Police, and London Cares, that's on the street every day. The City calls this a caring, compassionate approach, but homelessness and related issues are still one of the biggest concerns Londoners have.
Council also endorsed a full Community Encampment Plan back in June 2024, including a rapid forced closure protocol for situations that need one, but as of the City's own documents, it still hasn't been fully operationalized. That gap between the vote and the follow-through is a serious problem.
The City runs monthly dashboards tracking shelters, encampments, and its Highly Supportive Housing program. I'd hold the city to actually using that data, and changing course where the current approach clearly isn't working.
Supported housing has to come with real conditions. If the City is putting people into housing, that housing needs to stay safe and free of drugs and other illegal activity, for the well-being of both the people living there and for the neighbours around it.
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
Matt, I have a question. If I vote for you, what will you do to keep the home...?
As is my style, I'm not going to sugarcoat it: Any council candidate who claims to have a plan to end homelessness isn’t being honest with you. A councillor making that claim is like a lone farmer trying to sell a solution to end world hunger: he may have the right ideas, but he doesn't have the capacity or the power to deliver it.
But what I can tell you is how my personal position and principles will inform every decision on the topic. My answer to your question is enforcement, plus help for the people who want it, without raising your taxes.
First and foremost, breaking the law shouldn’t get a pass. Open drug use, theft and trespassing are already illegal, and I expect those laws enforced. Parks and sidewalks belong to all of us, so encampments get cleared, with an offer of safe, clean (zero tolerance for illegal activity) shelter for anyone willing to take it. Someone who refuses help, with the attached conditions, doesn’t get to keep a public park or sidewalk.
As for the expense, London already spends about $16 million a year on homelessness, which is part of roughly $46 million across all partners. I’ve committed to voting against any property tax increase, for any reason. I want the money we already spend tied to results you can check every quarter, like how many people move from shelters into housing and stay there. And programs that aren’t delivering should be reimagined or decommissioned.
Treatment is mostly the province’s job. I’d use whatever influence my position has to push for recovery and treatment that gets people clean. Hospitals, CMHA and the province deliver the clinical care.
A vote for me is a vote for strict enforcement, with the opportunity for those who are willing to get back on their feet, without inflating your tax bill. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-24.)
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
What is your plan to reduce homelessness in London over the next four years?
Asking a city councillor for a plan to end homelessness is like asking a farmer for a plan to end world hunger. It's bigger than any one plan, any one seat, or even an entire city.
What a councillor can actually do is make sure London's own effort is honest. And that starts with real targets: shelter exits, supportive housing placements, and repeat homelessness, tracked and published every quarter so residents can see whether the number is moving or not.
It means directing resources where they actually work: prevention, rapid connections to permanent housing, and coordinated health and outreach services.
And it means council actually using the money as leverage: tie funding to results, and correct course or pull it when something isn't working.
That has to include holding supported housing itself to a standard. If the City is putting people into housing, that housing has to stay safe and free of drugs and other illegal activity, for the people living there and for their neighbours.
I can't tell you a councillor ends homelessness in four years, but I can tell you what an honest four years of trying actually looks like: targets you can check, results you can see, and a councillor willing to say when something isn't working instead of throwing more money at it.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
In a 2025 survey, Londoners identified homelessness as their top issue. In spite of significant investments, the city's level of homelessness is continuing to grow. What do you believe council has done well in dealing with this critical issue? What would you do differently?
Council has made progress worth noting. It built 24/7 Hubs that have moved dozens of people into stable housing, a Highly Supportive Housing Plan with actual staffing and intake standards behind it, and London was the first city in Canada approved for federal Housing Accelerator Fund money, over 80 million dollars now, tied to real unit targets the City has actually beaten on permits issued.
But there are problems, straight from the City's own numbers. The City keeps a real, active count of every person known to be homeless in London. In 2021, that count was just over a thousand people. By the end of last year, it was nearly twenty-three hundred. That's a core measure of this crisis, and it more than doubled while the City was building all of that infrastructure.
Council endorsed a full Community Encampment Plan back in 2024. The City's own website says it still hasn't been fully put into practice. That lack of follow-through on the plans already voted on is a real gap. And in 2024, the share of people successfully diverted away from homelessness actually dropped, well below the City's own five-year average.
I don't want to keep funding programs that return no or negative results. I'd rather run smaller pilot projects, test them against real outcomes, and get behind whatever actually works instead of pouring more into something the City's own numbers say hasn't been effective.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
People experiencing homelessness should be prevented from setting up encampments in public spaces.
Strongly agree. Public parks and spaces exist for every resident to use and enjoy, and an encampment effectively takes that space away from everyone else. Families can't picnic, kids can't play, and neighbours can't walk through safely when a park becomes a permanent camp. That's not a fair trade-off for the rest of the community to bear. Support services should be there for anyone who wants them, but public property has to stay open and safe for the public it belongs to.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should spend more money to provide shelter spaces for people experiencing homelessness.
Somewhat disagree. London already puts real money into this: the city alone contributes roughly $16 million a year toward homelessness response, part of a broader $46 million effort across all funding partners. That's a serious commitment, not an underfunded afterthought. The next dollar should go toward making that money work harder through effective, results-driven programs, not toward a bigger budget line. And whatever we do, it can't come with a tax increase.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
What specific actions would you support to increase affordable and supportive housing in our city?
By the City's own numbers, council endorsed 600 new highly supportive housing units, over three years, back in April 2024. As of the City's own most recent report, 169 of those units are actually built and occupied.
I'd use City land first, the way our own Official Plan already says surplus land should be evaluated for affordable housing before anything else.
And I want to be clear about what I'm not proposing. Turning single-family streets into rental complexes, three, four, five units crammed onto one lot, run by a landlord who doesn't live there and doesn't answer to the neighbours, isn't the kind of housing policy I'll support.
What I do support is family taking care of family. London and the province both already allow a homeowner to add a basement suite or a small backyard suite on their own property, so a parent or an adult child can live right there with the family instead of getting shipped off to a facility they don't want to be in. I'd protect and expand that option specifically, while keeping the line clear against turning ordinary neighbourhoods into rental blocks.
And supportive housing has to come with the services that make it actually work: health supports, case management, security. Without that, it's just a different kind of failure in a nicer building.
Both council and the public need to see the numbers. Units approved, units built, units occupied, and units still safe and stable a year later.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
What are you prepared to do to address London's opioid/street drug crisis now that funding for safe consumption sites has evaporated?
The City holds three of eleven Board of Health seats, and as councillor I'd use that to push provincial and health-system dollars toward recovery and treatment, not toward managing continued use.
The City doesn't deliver clinical treatment; hospitals, CMHA, and the province do.
Public drug use is already illegal and I want it enforced, not tolerated, with real help offered to anyone who wants it.
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.
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.
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.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
Is there anything else you would like to share regarding housing affordability, tenant protections, rental housing quality, homelessness prevention, or other housing-related priorities?
Most of my answers come back to one idea. Renters do best when there’s a For Rent sign on more than one street to choose from and the rent isn’t climbing to cover City Hall’s spending. I’ll hold the line on property taxes and cut the red tape that keeps new rental housing from getting built and rented out.
My goal is for the market to provide every kind of home, from a bedroom rental to a high-rise apartment, to dynamically meet the demand of those seeking them.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
How can London improve public safety while also supporting people experiencing homelessness?
Public safety is the most important thing a city government does. Everything else council debates matters less if people don't feel safe walking through their own neighbourhood.
That starts with a simple line I won't blur: breaking the law shouldn't get a pass. Period. Theft, violence, trespassing, open drug use in public spaces, none of that is acceptable, no matter the circumstances of the perpetrator. I expect that to be enforced consistently.
At the same time, help should go to people who actually want and need it. Outreach and health teams should be there for someone ready to take housing, treatment, or support, and council's job is to fund that system and make sure it works. But help isn't a blank cheque, and it isn't a substitute for consequences when someone breaks the law.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
What will you do to respond to the businesses and residents impacted by homelessness in their neighbourhoods?
Communication is the easy part. A contact number and a follow-up email don't fix anything on their own, and residents and business owners in this city have had enough studies and plans thrown at them. They're right to expect more than that. They expect the problem in their backyard or in front of their store to actually get resolved.
So here's what that means in practice. Every resident report should get a clear contact path and a real response time, as the bare minimum starting point. Behind that has to be actual outreach and enforcement, whichever the situation calls for, and a public record of whether the problem was resolved or not. If the same corner shows up on a list month after month with nothing changing, that's a process failure.
The success metric Londoners care about is whether a person got help and whether the sidewalk in front of that business is actually safe and usable again.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
While disabled persons must be provided for by taxpayers out of necessity, there is a real risk that increasing local taxation to access provincial and federal housing funding will turn London into a "magnet" for government housing — attracting demand from across the region, while the very taxation used to fund it forces people out of their homes and into the system they are paying for.
How will you help prevent a scenario where rising local taxation to fund social housing expansion turns London into a regional magnet for government housing — and drives working taxpayers out of their homes and into social housing?
I will help prevent rising local taxation through my commitment to oppose any property tax increase, for any reason, including to expand social housing funding, which blocks the exact mechanism this question is worried about.
Beyond that, the City already spends roughly $16 million a year on homelessness, part of about $46 million across all partners, and I want proof that those dollars are producing measured results before any of it grows, regardless of what the province or federal government offers to match.
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.
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.
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.