Where I stand on policing and public safety
Here is every answer I've given on the record about policing and public safety, 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.
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.
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.
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
Where would you direct the money an ALPR program would cost, if not to ALPRs?
Not every dollar not spent on fixed cameras has to go somewhere else. If a program doesn't clear the bar on its own merits, the money goes back to taxpayers, not into a different program by default.
But where I would send it is neighbourhood patrol, because the crime I care about here, vehicle break-ins, shed and garage theft, things taken off porches, is significantly undercounted. Only about half of break-ins and vehicle-related thefts ever get reported to police, and 57% of people who skip reporting say it's because they don't believe police can recover the property anyway. London's theft-from-vehicle count rose nearly 46% in 2025, and the national clearance rate for motor vehicle theft sits under 10%. That gap means official crime statistics understate this problem by design, so I would not have London rely on police-report maps alone to decide where officers go; resident associations, insurance claims, and non-emergency call volume pick up patterns that never make it into a report, and those should count too.
The research favours visibility over volume: officers deployed to known problem locations cut property crime by roughly a third in controlled studies, while patrol spread thin and randomly across a whole area showed no effect. I would fund that: consistent, visible patrol in the neighbourhoods this combined picture, formal reports and informal ones, actually points to, not a camera network.
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.
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Maintaining appropriate staffing/apparatus/station coverage is a core municipal public-safety responsibility (1-5 scale)
5, Strongly Agree
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Anything else you'd like LPFFA/families to know?
I'll approach every budget and staffing decision for the fire department by looking at the actual data and the actual need. I don't think public safety is a place for shortcuts, and I don't think your professional judgment about what the job requires should be overridden by people who've never done it. If I'm elected, you'll find me straightforward to work with, even when we don't agree on every detail.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
What financing approach would you support across the police and fire project accounts, including debt, reserves, development charges, and other contributions? Would you require a consolidated financing plan before further approvals? Please identify any limits or conditions you would seek to protect municipal finances, distinguishing adopted financing from forecasts and actual receipts.
Business Case P-57 financed all $204.7 million of its additional capital with debt repaid from property taxes, and it booked $0 from reserves, development charges or other governments. That package also covers police headquarters work, and it carries $77.3 million in debt payments from 2028 to 2033, about $12.9 million a year.
The business case put its 2026 tax impact at 0.78 percent, or $30.98 on an average residential property. I won’t vote for a budget that raises property taxes during my term, so I’d require a consolidated financing plan across the police and fire project accounts before any further approvals, showing each source and separating adopted financing from forecasts and actual receipts. My conditions would be no new borrowing beyond what council has already authorized, and any provincial or federal money applied to the debt first.
Source: Business Case P-57, capital budget table and tax levy impact table
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
How much should London spend on policing?
About the same as now. Police do hard and important work and need to stay well-supported. But that doesn't mean forking over more money every year without asking what it buys. Before any increase, I want proof the money already committed is going toward what actually works: evidence-based methods with results to show for them. Keep funding steady, and hold every dollar to that standard.
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.)
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
E-scooter safety. Kids riding e-scooters at high speeds without helmets...?
A kid flying down a residential street or a sidewalk on an e-scooter with no helmet is a frightening thing to watch.
Here's where the rules stand. Riders have to be 16 or older, and 16 and 17 year olds must wear a helmet. Scooters are banned from sidewalks and capped at 24 km/h, and they belong in bike lanes, on multi-use pathways or on roads posted at 50 km/h or less. Council extended the pilot in May, and the by-law holds parents responsible when a child under 16 rides on City property. So the rules exist. But, rules without teeth are just a sheet of paper flapping in the wind.
As with many of our problems, the answer isn't more rules. It's enforcement of the rules already on the books. But that's the tricky part. Enforcement is (ideally) targeted based on data like incident reports, so the best course of action is likely to report violations to the City's bylaw enforcement office at 519-661-4660 or [email protected], or to London Police on their non-emergency line at 519-661-5670. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-17.)
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
Which campus components would you support proceeding with, modifying, deferring, or cancelling, and which remain undecided? Please identify the needs, capacity, safety, cost, or alternatives evidence informing your position, and what could change it. Would you seek a current component-level cost schedule and the supporting assessments before further approvals?
I support proceeding with the core training facilities: the main training building and drill hall, scenario simulation, the indoor and outdoor ranges, and the burn tower. P-57 says the training sites in Hamilton, Mississauga, York and Windsor are at capacity, and so is the Ontario Police College. It also says tactical and K9 officers often get called out of training for high-risk calls. We don't want our London tactical officers on a range in Hamilton when lives are at stake and every moment counts.
I’m undecided on the later items, including the public fire safety village, the driving track and fleet storage, because no cost for any single component exists yet. Before further approvals I’d require the component-level cost schedule along with the consultant’s feasibility study, which CTV reported council never saw when it chose the site. A clear cost per component, or a shared regional option that costs less, could change my position on any piece.
Sources: Business Case P-57 (alternatives, Stage 1 contents) · Phase 2 list · CTV News London, July 2025
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.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should respond to public drug use with support services rather than police enforcement.
Strongly disagree. Public drug use is illegal, and services don't change that. Support services should exist for anyone who wants help, but asking police to step back and let the law go unenforced is where I draw the line. When someone is using drugs in a park, on a sidewalk, or near a school, police need to be able to act, not wait for a caseworker with a different mandate. Offer help to those who want it. Don't replace the law with a suggestion.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
Police should have the authority to require people using illegal drugs in public spaces to leave, even if they are not committing other crimes.
Strongly agree. Public spaces belong to everyone: families, kids, seniors, all of us. When the law says something is illegal, it shouldn't quietly stop applying just because someone using drugs in a park or on a sidewalk isn't also breaking another law at the same moment. Consistent enforcement is what makes a rule mean anything. Police need the authority to keep our shared public spaces safe and welcoming for everyone who uses them.
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.
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.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The City of London employs Property Standards Officers to inspect rental properties, document conditions, and enforce municipal property standards by-laws. Would you support expanding their role to document evidence of suspected bad-faith evictions or landlord fraud, preserve that evidence, and refer well-documented cases to London Police or the appropriate provincial authorities for investigation?
This exposes a real problem: two levels of government both claiming the same job.
Property Standards Officers enforce municipal by-laws, property condition, permits, the renovation-eviction licence process. Determining "bad-faith eviction" or "landlord fraud" is a legal finding, and that authority already sits with the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, backed by the province's own Rental Housing Enforcement Unit and the police for anything criminal.
Layering a City investigation function on top of that doesn't fix the problem, it just gives London two agencies doing the same job with no clearer answer for tenants. Pick one. Either it stays provincial, where the legal authority already exists, or it moves to the municipal level, and if it moves, the funding moves with it. The Province downloading enforcement onto the City without downloading the money to pay for it is how you end up with an unfunded program and the same complaints a year from now.
Ottawa looked at this exact proposal and rejected it for the same reason. I'd rather push the province to actually enforce the powers it already has than build a duplicate program the City can't properly fund.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
You may add up to 150 words identifying a material omission, correcting the premise, or explaining a position not adequately covered by these questions. Evidence supporting particular facilities, or showing that changing course would cost more, is welcome.
Two items are missing from the public record. The first is the consultant’s feasibility study behind the site and the budget, since CTV reported in July 2025 that council approved the Manning Drive site without seeing it. I’d like to see that released.
The second is revenue. P-57 says the consultant projected a net gain of $243,000 by year 12 from renting training space, assuming 75 percent use of the key spaces, and that London Fire could become a regional training centre for surrounding departments. Neighbouring services that train here should pay their share, and council should see that rental plan before it approves Phase 2.
Sources: CTV News London, July 2025 · Business Case P-57 (revenue projection; regional training centre)
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Residents expect reliable municipal services while facing increasing household costs. How would you balance maintaining services and infrastructure with keeping property-tax increases affordable? Are there areas where London should spend more, or spend less?
Start with the service level residents actually need, then fund it honestly over the asset's full life. Roads, bridges, water, sewers, fire, police, waste collection, and transit reliability deserve priority. New amenities and expansion should wait when the City cannot maintain what it already has without repeated tax pressure. Affordability isn't achieved by deferring maintenance until the bill is larger. It's achieved by prioritizing early, publishing the trade-offs, and refusing commitments without a durable funding plan.
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
Constituent concerns (ward9.online/concerns/)
Will you support lowering the speed limit on Longwoods Road after the December 2024 tragedy?
As you know, I also live on Longwoods Road, just down from the horrific tragedy that occurred on December 16, 2024. It's not something that any of us will forget.
Our goal here is the same: a road where what happened to an innocent child doesn't happen again. But speed limits are not the cause or the solution here, and I want to walk through my reasoning.
**What happened that day.**
The bus was stopped. The red lights were flashing. The stop arm was extended. A courier in a 2023 Honda Pilot drove straight past it. The child had been told, correctly, that those flashing lights and that extended arm meant every driver on the road would stop. London Police investigated for six months. Two people were charged: the courier, for the bypass, and the bus driver, for letting him off the bus without confirming traffic had stopped.
Two separate, independent failures of an absolute rule. Neither one is a speed-limit question.
**Why a lower limit would not have changed this outcome.**
A posted speed limit sets the upper bound for drivers who intend to obey the rules of the road. It is meaningful for the careful driver. It is not meaningful for a driver willing to pass a stopped school bus with its lights flashing. A driver who commits that violation with a posted 80km/h limit will commit it at any posted speed, and probably won't slow down either. The problem with the courier was not his speed. It was that he blew past a stopped bus with its lights flashing. That's not something a lower speed limit can solve.
Lowering the speed limit of the former Highway 2 corridor would not have changed the outcome on December 16, 2024. That is the hard truth.
More broadly, studies on two-lane roads have found that slower lead vehicles, larger speed differentials, platooning, and restricted passing opportunities can increase driver frustration and overtaking intent. That is especially concerning on our stretch of Longwoods, with its many driveways, curves, and side roads, and it is another reason I am cautious about lowering posted limits as a general policy.
**What would actually move the needle.**
The interventions that target what actually went wrong are real, and most of them are within the scope of city council.
- **Stop-arm cameras on London school buses.** Ontario authorized municipalities to use and prosecute with these in 2020. A petition launched by Charles and Rachel Bakker after the Longwoods tragedy gathered over 2,100 signatures and called for measures including red light cameras. The petition was addressed directly to local politicians and London's police chief. The city installed a speed radar sign in response, but has not acted on the camera proposal. This is the kind of targeted deterrent I would push the city to pursue.
- **The school bus stop relocation.** The school bus service already adjusted the route, and students are no longer crossing Longwoods. This is the type of intervention that actually targets the failure mode: address the root and don't rely on the competence and reliability of drivers.
- **Police enforcement of the rules already on the books.** Monitoring stop-arm violations and corridor speeding are operational decisions a councillor does not direct. What a councillor does have influence over is the police operating budget and four of seven Police Service Board appointments. My goal is enforcement of what is already in place.
**Where I stand.**
Lowering speed limits, especially on major roads and arteries, is contrary to my commitment to improving mobility. Frustrated drivers can become dangerous drivers. My focus is on efficient road travel, proper and complete safety measures for our children, and enforcement of the safety laws we already have. (Answered publicly at ward9.online/concerns/#concern-2.)
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
Would you commit to timely, complete responses to freedom-of-information requests about surveillance technology?
Yes, and it needs enforcement given the record. In 2017, London Police Service completed only 56.2% of FOI requests within the province's deadline at the time, well below the 81% municipal average that year. Under the current 45-business-day standard, missing that deadline outright counts as a deemed refusal, appealable to Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner. I would hold LPS to that standard publicly.
That commitment covers the technology itself: contracts, the privacy impact assessment, audit results, and deployment policy should all be releasable in full, and a vendor's confidentiality clause should never be the reason a resident can't see what the City is buying, what it costs, or what an audit found. Any contract that requires those basic facts to stay secret is a contract I would vote against before it ever creates an FOI problem.
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Would you commit to open dialogue with LPFFA, station visits, Fire Ops 101?
Yes
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The rise of the far right, both internationally and, particularly, in Southwestern Ontario, is a concern for many voters. In 2017, in response to a planned rally by groups promoting racist and hateful views, London City Council passed an emergency motion condemning all forms of racism, bigotry, and hate and prohibiting hate groups from holding rallies on city-owned property. In November 2025, a far-right group hung a banner from the Wortley Road overpass with the message "Remigration Now."
What measures, if any, would you support City Council taking to prevent or respond to similar activities by far-right groups in the future?
Nobody is above the law. And nobody should feel intimidated or targeted in their own city, and I take that seriously. I would go even further. I wouldn't stop at the far-right; I support full enforcement against anyone, of any ideology no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, committing illegal acts. And, in accordance with the law, if speech is lawful, then it must be permitted. The best disinfectant is daylight.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
What role should arts, culture and the creative industries play in London's economic and community development? How should the City support cultural organisations, artists, venues, festivals and creative businesses while ensuring that municipal investment produces lasting public value?
While arts, culture, and creative industries can add economic and civic value to London, that value ranks below essential services when taxpayer dollars are on the line. Roads, water, police, and fire come first.
The City can promote London's arts scene without funding it directly. Marketing and cutting the red tape around venues and events cost taxpayers far less than grants, and private and philanthropic support grows the sector better than a Council vote does. If it's not actually garnering voluntary support from private individuals, does it really warrant forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab?
London already runs the London Arts Council's Community Arts Investment Program, about $800,000 a year, plus heritage and tourism-tax-funded culture spending. I'm not planning to cut what exists, but if London's budget ever forces real tradeoffs, arts funding is exactly the kind of spending that gets reduced before essential services do.
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
What do you believe are the most significant challenges currently facing the London Fire Department?
In my view, the biggest challenge facing London Fire right now is probably keeping pace with growth. Ward 9, and London as a whole, is adding new structures fast, and I think call volume and response-times are going to keep climbing before the city's capital planning catches up with your needs.
I'd also suspect recruitment and retention. The job is tough, you're competing for skilled people in a tight labour market, and I think that pressure is only going to grow.
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.
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.
TREA (Thames Region Ecological Association) environmental questionnaire
Open-Air Burning
No, I wouldn't support a ban on open-air burning. London already has a framework that handles this: By-law F-9 requires a permit above a certain size and restricts burning hours, and the City can shut burning down entirely when air quality turns dangerous, which is exactly what happened automatically in July 2026 during the wildfire smoke event. That's the right tool for a real hazard. A backyard fire on a normal night is a different situation. A blanket ban is like closing every stove in the city because one kitchen caught fire. Your question comes down to two different things: neighbours disagreeing over an occasional fire, and smoke reaching dangerous levels citywide. The bylaw already draws that line, and I'd keep it there.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should increase the presence of police officers downtown.
Somewhat agree. Downtown deserves more police presence, but the risk doesn't stop at the core. London's vehicle theft alone jumped nearly 46 percent in a single year, and residential neighbourhoods face real overnight risk too, not just downtown. A downtown-only approach leaves those neighbourhoods exposed exactly when they're least watched. Police presence should follow where Londoners and their property actually need protecting, day or night, downtown or not.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
What gaps do you see in the current Council’s approach to rental housing maintenance and by-law enforcement? How would you push for improvements if elected?
A homeowner renting out a basement apartment needs a licence and an inspection before the first tenant moves in, while an entire apartment tower down the street doesn’t need a licence at all. That’s backwards. I’d push bylaw enforcement to focus on the large buildings that keep generating complaints, inspect them top to bottom, and follow through with strict enforcement.
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Would you like to visit a station or do a ride along?
Yes
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Should families of work-related deaths receive established line-of-duty benefits?
Yes
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Do you support regularly reviewing staffing/deployment as population/growth/call volume increase?
Yes
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*
Platform (ward9.online homepage)
Safe at home
Overnight break-ins keep happening in Ward 9. But a councillor can’t assign patrol cars. What a councillor can do, though, is two real things: fight for police resources that match the documented break-in pattern, and push council’s Police Service Board appointees to make recurring hotspots a strategic priority for the Service.
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
How familiar are you with current operational/staffing/infrastructure/labour-relations issues facing LFD?
Not very familiar
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Would you support meaningful consultation with frontline firefighters/LPFFA on decisions affecting safety/staffing/equipment/working conditions?
Yes
London Professional Fire Fighters Association Election Survey
Do you support long-term investments in staffing/stations/apparatus where growth/operational need shows they're needed?
Yes
No More Noise Municipal Candidate Promise survey
Do you agree to push the province for automated enforcement?
We are asking municipalities to pass formal council resolutions urging the Province of Ontario to amend the Highway Traffic Act so it can allow for automated noise enforcement pilots in our cities.
No. I'm against fixed cameras surveilling London’s citizens on principle, and a noise camera is another fixed camera reading licence plates, so I will oppose them.
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
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
Do you believe a firefighter whose death is legally recognized as resulting from an occupational injury or disease arising from their firefighting career should receive appropriate line-of-duty recognition regardless of whether the firefighter was active or retired at the time of death?
Need more information (no comment field existed on this question)
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
What is your understanding of the amount and purposes of any provincial funding request, and what source supports that understanding? Please distinguish a request from an approved contribution or money received. What should the City publish about the request and its conditions? If provincial funding is smaller than anticipated or unavailable, how should that affect the project and municipal financing?
As far as I can find, no specific provincial request is on the public record. Business Case P-57 books $0 in grants, and the City told you only that it continues to advocate to the provincial and federal governments.
At the July 2025 site approval, the mayor spoke of the “potential to partner regionally, provincially and federally,” which states an intention without an amount. I’ve found nothing showing an approved contribution or money received. The strongest case for provincial money is the space planned for the Provincial HAZMAT response unit, since that serves the province’s own program.
The City should publish the amount it has asked for and when, along with any conditions attached. If provincial money comes in smaller than hoped or never arrives, the later phases should wait, and I won’t support filling that gap with more borrowing or a tax increase.
Sources: Business Case P-57, operating table (Grants: $0) · City of London newsroom, July 22, 2025 (mayor’s quote) · Provincial HAZMAT space
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
Do you commit to supporting the implementation of a Landlord Registration Program in London that shifts from a purely complaint-based system to proactive enforcement while being self-funding?
Other: I'd support a self-funded registry covering multi-building and medium/high-density landlords, with proactive inspections only for repeat offenders.
I’d support a registry that pays for itself, covering landlords who rent out more than one building they don’t live in, or any apartment building or other medium- or high-density rental. For those landlords it replaces the current rental licence, so the fee they already pay goes toward it.
Enforcement starts with tenant complaints. Once a building piles up substantiated complaints, it moves onto scheduled inspections, and the owner pays for those return visits until the building earns a clean record.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
Tenants in London often face challenges getting repairs for issues like mould, pests, or lack of heat because enforcement only kicks in after formal complaints. Would you support moving to a proactive system where the City regularly inspects rental properties, especially multi-unit buildings, to catch problems early?
Undecided
I’m leaning against it. Sending inspectors through every rental building on a schedule means a bigger bureaucracy and new fees. Someone has to pay for that, and it's likely to land on taxpayers and tenants.
A complaint-driven system can work if the enforcement behind it is efficient and effective. When a tenant reports mould or a dead furnace, the inspection should happen quickly, and there must be strong consequences for non-compliance. Where a building keeps generating complaints, that’s where I’d send inspectors through top to bottom.
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.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
As a Ward Councillor, would you actively champion and vote in favour of a strong Landlord Registration Program with proactive enforcement at City Council? Please explain your position.
For any landlord who rents out more than one building they don’t live in, or even a single apartment building or other medium- or high-density rental, I’d vote in favour of a registry so there’s a name and contact info on file when mould starts creeping across a bathroom ceiling or cockroaches start appearing.
For enforcement, I’d keep it responsive: tenant complaints get a fast inspection and strong consequences for non-compliance, and a building that keeps generating substantiated complaints goes onto scheduled inspections until it earns a clean record. That puts the City’s attention on the worst offenders and keeps the homeowner renting out a basement apartment free of new red tape.
London Muslims Vote candidate questions
Should the City of London adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism?
No. The City shouldn’t adopt any definition that turns speech into a category for enforcement, whoever it’s meant to protect. My bar is the criminal law: threats, violence and harassment get enforced against anyone, of any background or belief.
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
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.
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.
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.
No More Noise Municipal Candidate Promise survey
Do you agree to modernize the Operating Definition of Noise within your city?
The current operating definition of most noise in municipal bylaws is 'unwanted sound'. This definition requires for residents to complain about noise before city government action can be taken. 'Unwanted and/or harmful sound' allows for municipal governments to take proactive, health-focused enforcement action, reducing the need for people to report noise issues.
Not sure. I could support updating the City’s definition of noise if the new one is objectively measurable and backed by solid evidence. “Harmful” on its own is too vague to enforce fairly.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should strictly enforce safety rules for rental housing, even if this means some units can no longer be rented out.
Somewhat disagree. Safety rules exist for good reason. No one should be trapped in a home that's genuinely unsafe, and I support enforcing a real floor on that. But strict enforcement with no judgment can backfire: push too hard over minor, fixable issues, and some landlords will simply pull units off the market rather than fix them, shrinking supply when London needs more housing, not less. The goal is safe housing and available housing. Enforce real safety standards, but apply them with reasonable judgment, not a rigid rulebook that empties the rental market.
Climate Action London questionnaire
Building height maximums as specified in the London Plan should be strictly adhered to as they represent comprehensive plans for the growth of the city taking into account utility demands, emergency services, mobility plans, and preserving neighbourhood character. Recently, council has been approving many developments that exceed both maximum heights and densities as per the London Plan. Given that place types such as downtown, transit villages and corridors and urban corridors already allow significant building heights to meet housing supply demands and intensification targets, individual exceptions should not be allowed but changes to these height and density maximums should only be addressed through official plan amendments.
Strongly agree. The London Plan already allows 45 storeys downtown and 35 in Transit Villages. Urban Corridors go to 15. Neighbourhood Connector streets are capped at 4. Height belongs where the pipes, roads, and emergency services are built for it.
Council has been granting site-specific exceptions that blow past those caps. On June 23, 2026, Council approved six storeys and 100 units per hectare for 3924, 4012 and 4050 Colonel Talbot Road in Lambeth, above the Southwest Area Secondary Plan's own cap of four storeys and 75 units per hectare. I filed a written objection before the vote, citing the specific policies it violated. Council approved the application anyway, and Ward 9's current councillor voted for it. The pattern repeats: Council approved 16 storeys a year earlier at 6309 Pack Road, against a 9-storey cap. That is the kind of exception I will vote against.
If the citywide height table needs to change, change the table through a proper Official Plan amendment, in public. Do not grant exceptions for specific applicants, especially when it has not been proven that the infrastructure is in place to handle such intensification, and when it is not in character with the surrounding neighbourhoods.
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.
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.
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.)
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
What specific actions would you take in your ward to improve housing quality for low- and moderate-income residents, including renters?
The best protection is being able to walk away from a bad situation, and that goes both ways. A tenant setting a bucket under a leaking ceiling every time it rains should have somewhere better to move, and a homeowner thinking about renting out a basement apartment should feel confident it won’t turn into a costly gamble.
When renting is mutually beneficial, more people open up units, and more quality housing becomes available to the tenants who need it.
I’d push for property standards orders against registered rental buildings to be searchable by address, so a family can check a building’s track record before they sign a lease.
And when a tenant reports a problem, I’ll push bylaw enforcement to deal with it swiftly and effectively.
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Implementing the Downtown Plan will require Council to make choices about future municipal investment. When downtown investment competes with other priorities across London, do you believe downtown should continue to be a City-wide investment priority? Why or why not? If YES: What would you be prepared to prioritize or fund? If NO: What should take priority instead? If IT DEPENDS: What would your decision depend on?
I won't prioritize downtown to the detriment of the rest of the city, but we shouldn't neglect it either.
Council endorsed a roadmap: a new downtown office, upgrades to Victoria Park, Ivey Park, and Covent Garden Market, a river district at the Forks of the Thames, and more branding around the City of Music title. But endorsing that roadmap isn't the same as funding it. The City's own account says the roughly $48 million it would take gets decided later, through the next strategic plan and the next multi-year budget.
A park upgrade, a new office, or self-promotion shouldn't take priority over essential infrastructure or emergency services.
Downtown definitely needs attention, but my priority will always be Ward 9, and essential services and infrastructure come first.
London Emergency Services Campus candidate questionnaire
If Ontario contributes funding, what should it change: municipal borrowing, reserve use, other municipal contributions, project scope, timing, or property-tax requirements? What public accounting would you require to show how the contribution was applied and whether any claimed municipal savings occurred?
Provincial money should pay down borrowing first. P-57 finances its additional capital with debt carried on the property tax bill, so every provincial dollar that replaces a dollar of debt also removes years of interest on it.
I wouldn’t let a contribution expand the scope or pull later phases forward, and any change in scope should come back to council as its own decision with its own price. To show how a contribution was applied, I’d want staff to report it in the capital budget, naming the project account it went to, the debt it replaced and the change to the forecast tax levy.
A year later, council should get a check against actual results showing whether borrowing and the tax impact fell by the amount promised. If the savings don’t show up on your tax bill, you deserve to know why.
Source: Business Case P-57, capital budget table (debenture financing)
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.
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.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Bill 5 creates Special Economic Zones where the provincial government has the power to exempt designated projects from provincial laws, regulations, and municipal bylaws. This authority could be used to waive environmental protections, health and safety requirements, labour standards, and other safeguards.
Do you support Bill 5?
Bill 5 significantly limits opportunities for First Nations consultation and consent. The legislation allows the Ontario government to bypass critical processes that safeguard species at risk, cultural heritage, and treaty rights particularly in regions like the Ring of Fire. It concentrates decision-making power in the hands of ministers and the Lieutenant Governor without mandating First Nations involvement, threatening sovereignty, land stewardship, and ongoing reconciliation efforts.
Do you support the Ontario First Nations Chiefs' legal challenge against Bill 5?
Bill 5's Special Economic Zones Act lets the province override local bylaws to fast-track a designated project. I don't find the First Nations legal challenge's theory persuasive as the reason to strike it down. That's a separate legal question from whether Bill 5 itself is good policy. My objection to Bill 5 is mine: it hands the province a tool to override decisions this city's own council makes, and I don't think Toronto should be able to overrule London on what happens in London. That's the same principle behind keeping water under municipal control. If a project needs an exemption from local rules to happen, the community it affects should be the one deciding that, not a provincial cabinet order.
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.
ACORN London Municipal Election Candidate Survey on Tenant Protections
A Landlord Registration Program, modelled after successful approaches elsewhere, would require landlords to register their properties, helping the City identify and address issues more efficiently. Such a program can be self-funded through fees and would not require new taxpayer dollars beyond startup. Do you support exploring and implementing a Landlord Registration Program in London?
Other: Yes for landlords renting out multiple buildings or any medium/high-density building, with lighter rules for homeowners
London’s rental licence already covers the homeowner with a basement apartment, while apartment towers are exempt. I’d flip that around. Any landlord who rents out more than one building they don’t live in, or even a single apartment building or other medium- or high-density rental, should be registered, so the City knows who owns it and who to call when the heat goes out. Where a landlord already holds the current rental licence, the registry should replace it, so nobody pays for two layers of paperwork. Enforcement stays complaint-driven, but once a building crosses a set number of substantiated complaints, it moves onto scheduled inspections until it stays clean through a probationary period. Someone earning a living from rental housing should meet a higher standard than a homeowner renting out a basement apartment to help pay the mortgage. Making it easier for that homeowner to rent means more homes on the market.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Bad faith renovictions by landlords have resulted in tenants being evicted from their rental homes. In 2025 council approved a Rental Unit Repair Bylaw. Is it enough? What else can London do to address this issue?
London already has a tool for renovictions. The Rental Unit Repair Licence has been in force since March 1, 2025. A landlord serving an N13 for renovations needs a building permit first, and has to apply for that licence within seven days.
But here's what people miss on evictions generally. The bigger risk to tenants isn't a landlord adjusting rent to cover rising costs, insurance, taxes, maintenance. It's a landlord who can't afford to keep the unit on the market at all, or a unit that falls apart because there's no money left to maintain it. Block every legitimate path to a workable rent, and there will be no more units left for renters to live in. That helps no one.
Same logic applies to safety enforcement; nobody should be trapped in a home that's genuinely unsafe. But push too hard over minor, fixable issues, and landlords pull units off the market instead of fixing them. That only shrinks the supply, and there is no avoiding the laws of supply and demand.
The law has to work for both sides. Tenants need stability. Landlords need viability. Enforce the licence, and apply safety standards with reasonable judgment.
Panopti.ca ALPR questionnaire
Do you support or oppose the deployment of fixed ALPR cameras in your municipality? Please explain your reasoning.
London Police Service already operates mobile ALPR on about 50 cruisers, with a completed privacy impact assessment and a stated policy of deleting non-hit data immediately. An officer is behind the wheel deciding where and when to drive, and, most importantly, non-hit data is deleted and not stored in a database. I can live with that system on the condition that the stated policy is actually followed and independently verified, not simply assumed.
A fixed camera network is different. It runs continuously with no officer making a judgment call, and it builds a permanent, searchable record of where every vehicle in the city has been. Waterloo activated exactly this kind of fixed CCTV and ALPR network in June, with more communities expected to follow. I oppose it for London.
My objection is not only that government would hold this data. I do not trust a private company to compile mass surveillance data on citizens either, whether the customer is a government or anyone else. A fixed network built and hosted by a vendor does not solve the problem by moving it outside City Hall. It adds a second party with access to the same compiled record. A permanent, always-on database creates its own risk regardless of who holds it or how careful today's policy looks: it invites expansion, becomes a target for a breach, and creates pressure to widen its use over time.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
What should London be doing now to prepare for the city it will be 20 years from now?
London shouldn't just use its own long-range plan as a slogan, but as discipline.
Growth should be directed where infrastructure can support it, with roads, transit, water, sewers, schools, and emergency capacity considered before approvals are finalized. We should renew the infrastructure we already own, close critical transportation gaps, and require clear costing for new commitments.
One of those gaps has been open for decades. London still doesn't have a real ring road, and every year we don't build one, we push more raging drivers through neighbourhoods where children play. Council finally voted in April 2025 to open talks on it, but in that same meeting admitted a ring road runs completely counter to their mobility plan, which is built around forcing 32.5 percent of all trips onto bikes, sidewalks, and buses. And this is the problem we face: City Hall constantly trying to make Londoners fit their plans, instead of making their plans fit Londoners. This needs to change.
Along the same thread, we need to ensure London doesn't become a city that taxes itself out of being livable. Every new commitment, be it a ring road or a mess of bike and bus lanes, has to come with a real number attached, because the same growth that builds a bigger city can just as easily build a permanently bigger tax bill if nobody's counting the pennies.
The London Plan's inward-and-upward direction can help control the cost of growth, but only if council follows it consistently, costs its commitments honestly, and reports the results publicly.
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.
Climate Action London questionnaire
It is a high priority that the City of London meet the goal in the London Plan that 25% of new housing, in aggregate, (and 40% for secondary plans) is affordable to low- and moderate-income households. London has been falling short on this goal therefore it should commit to all means available to the City to increase the number of new affordable units including leverage of public lands, financial incentives to developers by reducing fees, expedited approval timelines and concierge service team for affordable developments and use of the Canada Housing catalogue of pre-approved designs. Additionally, the City should prevent private developers from turning affordable rental units into expensive ones.
Neither agree nor disagree. I support faster, more predictable approvals and reforms, like pre-approved house designs, that cut building costs for every applicant. Both lower the cost of a unit, market or below-market, without a subsidy or a special track for anyone.
New homes are welcome where roads, water, wastewater, drainage, transit, emergency services, and parks can support the added population. Where that capacity is missing, the infrastructure plan has to come first, with a clear funding source. Existing residents should not be left paying the bill or living with worse service. Growth should pay for the infrastructure it requires.
The London Plan already requires 25% of new housing to be affordable for low- and moderate-income households, the City's incentive program already waives development charges for units locked into a 25-year income-restricted agreement, and Council has since assigned a dedicated staff concierge to walk those specific applications through approvals. That's already more interference in the market than I would like to see.
Moving forward, I will support cutting fees and speeding up approvals across the board, and let the market dictate what class of housing needs more supply to meet demand. Developers already agree to a 25-year affordability term in exchange for the City's fee exemption and concierge service. I do not support the City going further and locking those units, or any others, into a permanent rent cap: this drastically lowers incentives to provide rental units, and leads landlords to abandon necessary maintenance once the capped rent stops covering the cost of upkeep.