Where I stand on water and fluoridation
Here is every answer I've given on the record about water and fluoridation, 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.
Water fluoridation candidate question (from a resident)
If an adequate margin of safety cannot be demonstrated—particularly for pregnant women, infants and children—will you support ending fluoridation?
Ending fluoridation. If an adequate margin of safety can't be shown, yes. And I'd go further: I'd bring forward a motion to discontinue it. If the decision ended up hinging on depriving people of fluoride for their teeth, I'd propose that the money previously spent on fluoridation be allocated to supplying fluoride toothpaste to low-income Londoners who want it.
Water fluoridation candidate question (from a resident)
In light of the newer evidence concerning neurodevelopment, will you support an independent and transparent reassessment of London's water-fluoridation policy?
Reassessment. Yes, an independent and transparent one, with everything published so residents can read it for themselves, and the strongest arguments presented fairly from both sides.
Water fluoridation candidate question (from a resident)
Will you investigate what safety testing, regulatory oversight and manufacturing standards apply to the actual fluoridating chemical London uses?
The chemical itself. London's 2025 drinking water report lists fluorosilicic acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid) as the fluoride chemical. What I'd press staff on is what you asked: what regulatory approval and testing standard it's held to for lifelong ingestion, and what the supplier's certificates of analysis show for arsenic and lead. I'd want those answers in writing and in public.
Water fluoridation candidate question (from a resident)
Do you agree that a plebiscite can determine public policy but cannot establish scientific safety or effectiveness?
Plebiscites. I agree a vote can tell you what people want, and it can't tell you what's safe. The Fluoridation Act lets council pass a by-law to discontinue fluoridation on its own, and a vote of the electors is optional. So council can make this decision.
Water fluoridation candidate question (from a resident)
Will you investigate how an “optimal” individual dose can be assured when the City controls concentration but not individual consumption, body weight or total fluoride exposure?
Dose. Yes. The City controls concentration and has no say over how much anyone drinks, their body weight, or what they get from toothpaste and food. That's a fair point and it needs an answer on the record.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
In 2021 London voted to join more than 120 Blue Communities worldwide. This means we are presently committed to:
• Public ownership and operation of water services
• Recognition of water and sanitation as human right
• Phasing out / banning single-user bottled water in municipal facilities and at municipal events.
Will you commit to protecting London's status as a Blue Community and opposing any attempt to undermine these three commitments?
I reject "human right" as the term, especially for sanitation, since a right can't obligate someone else's labour. But no one should lose water access over genuine inability to pay, and working out arrears instead of cutting people off is the right thing to do.
The bottled water rule doesn't affect most residents day to day, so I'm okay with it.
My priority is public ownership of water under local control: London's water stays with London council, and not a province-run corporation.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
The Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (Bill 60) gives the provincial municipal affairs and housing minister the power to create a business corporation to take over water and sewage services from municipalities. Although amendments now require such corporations to remain publicly owned, they are not required to operate on a not-for-profit basis. Affected municipalities would have to transfer all their water and wastewater assets, staff, debt, contracts and infrastructure to the new body. The new corporation would set water rates for municipal residents. This model would result in reduced democratic accountability and transparency as decisions about rates, investments, and operations would be made by a corporate board rather than directly by elected council; control will be transferred to the province; and outsourcing to private firms will be enabled. Legally, the Province can impose the model on municipalities it designates. Politically, at least at this stage, the government is seeking voluntary participants before using its broader statutory powers.
Do you support keeping water & sanitation publicly owned through direct control by municipalities?
Will you oppose the provisions of this legislation that threaten to reduce control of water and sanitation by municipalities?
Bill 60 is aimed at exactly this: giving the province more room to take municipal water and sanitation systems out of local hands. I want that decision staying with London council, not shifted to Toronto or handed to a province-run corporation. If Bill 60 provisions move in that direction, I'll oppose them. Direct municipal control means the people using the system and paying for it are the ones deciding how it's run, not a provincial appointee who never has to answer to a London taxpayer.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
London'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.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
Property developers should pay a greater share of the cost of road, water, and energy infrastructure needed to support new housing construction.
Somewhat agree. There's a real difference between an individual building a single home on their own lot and a large developer laying out an entire new subdivision. An individual shouldn't be treated like a corporate developer building hundreds of units. But a developer creating brand new demand for roads, water, and energy capacity should cover a fair share of what that growth requires. Existing taxpayers who already paid for their own infrastructure shouldn't be stuck subsidizing someone else's profit-driven expansion. Growth should pay for growth, at the scale that's actually creating it.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
How would you approach applications to build data centres for use with A.I. in London?
I won't support a blanket freeze on data centre applications. It treats every site the same when the sites aren't. Some proposals would pull hard on the local power grid, run noisy equipment near homes, and lean on the municipal water system to cool it. Others don't. Burlington is reviewing a data centre application that's built air-cooled, drawing no municipal water for cooling, going through ordinary site plan review like any other large building in the city.
I'll vote for conditions on approval. A project has to bring its own power generation that adds real capacity to the local grid, use cooling that doesn't strain the municipal water system, and meet noise and setback rules that protect the homes nearby. Construction on a project like this employs real people, but that work is temporary. Permanent staffing once a facility is operating is a small fraction of the construction workforce. I want the approval to lock in the lasting return too: local property tax assessment growth, and grid capacity the whole city benefits from when the generation condition is actually enforced. Approve the ones that meet the tests. Refuse the ones that don't.
Climate Action London questionnaire
The City of London should implement a 1-2 year moratorium on AI Data Centres. There are many harmful aspects to AI Data Centres such as straining local energy grids, constant industrial level noise, heat island impacts over 2 degrees potential up to 10kms away, high water usage or other potential negative environmental impacts from maintaining closed loop cooling systems. AI Data Centres also provide very few jobs after construction. A moratorium would allow proper higher level government regulation and standards to be created before putting London residents at risk.
Slightly disagree. A one or two-year freeze treats every proposal the same. Some sites would pull hard on the local grid, run noisy equipment next to homes, and draw heavily on the municipal water system to cool it. Other sites don't have to. Burlington is currently reviewing a 20-megawatt data centre that is air-cooled (uses no municipal water for cooling) and is going through the same site plan and servicing review as any other large building in the city. That difference is exactly what a blanket freeze ignores.
I will not vote for a moratorium. Hamilton's council rejected a one-year data centre pause in July, 10 to 6. I will vote for conditions instead. A campus that wants City approval should bring power generation that adds capacity to the local grid instead of only serving itself, use cooling that does not negatively impact the municipal water system, and meet noise and setback rules that protect nearby homes.
Construction employment is real, but temporary, and permanent staffing once the site is operating is a small fraction of that construction workforce. The lasting local return is property tax assessment growth and, if the generation condition is enforced, grid capacity the entire city benefits from too. Both depend on the conditions being written into the approval, not assumed after the fact. I will approve a data centre that meets the tests. I will refuse one that does not.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
Would you support the City of London divesting from municipal water / hydro resources by way of a Municipal Services Corporation?
London Hydro already operates at arm's length from City Hall. It's a corporation with its own board, and the City is its sole shareholder, receiving an annual dividend. Any further change to how these services are structured needs to clear one bar for me: does it actually improve service and value for the ratepayer, without quietly moving costs or debt off one column of the City's books and onto another.
Water and wastewater are different. The City runs those directly today, and I'm cautious about moving an essential service Londoners can't choose an alternative for further from direct public accountability. If a restructuring proposal ever comes to council, I'd want to see the real financial case and exactly what oversight ratepayers keep before I'd support it.
Neighbourhoods London "Building London Survey"
Optional: How will your initiatives and policies help to increase the supply of your highest priority selections?
Faster approvals and pre-approved designs cut the time and cost between an idea and a building, so builders can respond to what people need. Growth should pay for growth, so the roads, water and sewers are in place before approval.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
London must maintain roads, bridges, water and wastewater systems and other municipal assets. What infrastructure investments should be Council's highest priorities over the next four years, and how would you decide what gets funded now, what can wait, and how it should be paid for?
The first priority is renewal of existing roads, bridges, water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure, with projects ranked by condition and risk.
The second is transportation capacity and safety on the arterial network, especially where traffic is pushed into neighbourhood streets.
Finally, we should look seriously at a ring road, or some other solution to get drivers from one end of the city faster. With all of the new development in the West end, Westdel Bourne seems like a prime candidate for improvement. And not to put in fancy curbs, wide boulevards, and drop the speed limit.
I would decide now, on projects with clear safety, condition, or capacity evidence. Projects that depend on uncertain growth or lack full lifecycle costing should wait until the evidence and funding are ready.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Is keeping property taxes low a priority for you?
Yes. London has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and every tax dollar taken is a dollar out of a family's or small business's pocket.
I won't vote for any property tax increase, for any reason during my term.
Growth should pay for growth: new development should cover the roads, water, and sewer capacity it demands, so existing taxpayers aren't subsidizing someone else's expansion.
Vote Compass candidate questionnaire
London should rely more on fees for specific services rather than raising taxes to pay for them.
Somewhat agree. Essential services like roads, water, and safety belong on the tax base; that's what taxes are for. Fees make sense for optional extras like recreation programs, not core services everyone relies on. And even where a fee-for-service model would work, if a private business already does it well, City Hall shouldn't be running it at all. One line I won't cross: I will not support raising tax rates, full stop.
Council of Canadians (London Chapter) questionnaire
Would you vote in favour of an AI Data Center in our municipality?
If yes, what conditions would you impose? If no, why not?
My answer is only yes WITH STRONG CONDITIONS. No blanket yes or no.
I won't vote for a moratorium, but I won't rubber-stamp projects either. A data centre can earn approval by bringing its own power generation that adds real capacity to the local grid, using cooling that doesn't strain our municipal water system, and meeting noise and setback rules that protect Londoners' homes.
Those are the conditions on which I will base my decision.
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.
Urban League Ward 9 debate questions (2026-09-17 debate)
Some residents feel cycling infrastructure gets built at the expense of other priorities, while others feel it's chronically underfunded. How would you approach funding decisions around transportation relative to other infrastructure needs?
Some people say active transportation crowds out other priorities; others say it's starved. Both of those complaints can be true at once.
Transportation should sit among the City's highest infrastructure priorities, because if people can't move, nothing else works. But the dollars still have to compete in public with water, sewers, bridges, and the rest of the capital plan.
That fight should run on evidence, lifecycle cost, and a published ranked list.
I'd fund what matches how Londoners actually travel and how they want to travel.
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.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
What role should arts, culture and the creative industries play in London's economic and community development? How should the City support cultural organisations, artists, venues, festivals and creative businesses while ensuring that municipal investment produces lasting public value?
While arts, culture, and creative industries can add economic and civic value to London, that value ranks below essential services when taxpayer dollars are on the line. Roads, water, police, and fire come first.
The City can promote London's arts scene without funding it directly. Marketing and cutting the red tape around venues and events cost taxpayers far less than grants, and private and philanthropic support grows the sector better than a Council vote does. If it's not actually garnering voluntary support from private individuals, does it really warrant forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab?
London already runs the London Arts Council's Community Arts Investment Program, about $800,000 a year, plus heritage and tourism-tax-funded culture spending. I'm not planning to cut what exists, but if London's budget ever forces real tradeoffs, arts funding is exactly the kind of spending that gets reduced before essential services do.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
Provide your views on the status of public services and unionized workers for our city. What are your plans for a just economy that supports working people?
Transit operators, water and wastewater crews, and everyone else who keeps this city running in a unionized role do real, skilled work residents depend on every day. I don't doubt that for a second.
Government, at any level, isn't built to engineer a "just" economy. Every serious attempt at it ends up picking winners and creating losers. What actually supports working people is a City that does its own job well: deliver core services efficiently, and keep property taxes and the cost of doing business in London as low as possible. That does more for a working family's paycheque than any citywide economic-justice program could.
I'll judge every City service and every City contract on whether it's delivered efficiently and priced competitively, because that's what keeps taxes from climbing faster than paycheques do. That's the standard I'd apply to how the City treats the people who work for it too: compensation and benefits benchmarked to equivalent private-sector roles, reviewed in the open every term.
London Chamber of Commerce questionnaire
What changes would you support to increase housing supply and affordability and create neighbourhoods with access to employment, services, transportation and public amenities?
The fastest way to add supply without a subsidy is to cut what City Hall charges and how long it takes.
Price is set by both supply and demand. City Hall barely touches demand: population growth, interest rates, and investment flows are out of the realm of council, but the City has a big effect on how much gets built and how fast. That's where affordability actually gets decided. A City-mandated rent cap does the opposite of what it promises: it shrinks the rental supply landlords are willing to add, making the shortage worse. But every dollar and month City Hall cuts from the cost of building is a dollar that doesn't get passed through to the renter or buyer.
Growth belongs where the London Plan already designates density: downtown, transit villages, and corridors, rather than retrofitted into established single-family neighbourhoods through the one-off exceptions Council keeps granting against its own secondary plans.
Complete neighbourhoods need the roads, water, wastewater, and transit capacity in place before approval, paid for by the growth creating the need rather than by existing taxpayers.
CCAL (Concerned Citizens Association of London) questionnaire
Londoners have been hit with repeated property tax increases that far outpace inflation — a compounded tax levy increase of roughly 26% over four years — driven by overspending and frivolous spending on non-essential items. Council has shown it will not discipline itself without a hard rule.
Will you support a binding policy that any property tax increase above the rate of inflation requires a public referendum, and what specific spending lines would you cut first to stay under that ceiling?
I would, but my own standard already goes further: I won't support any property tax increase during my term, for any reason, not just increases above inflation.
I've also drafted the Pay Accountable to City Taxpayers bylaw, which permanently cuts council pay for any levy increase at all through this whole coming term, then only for increases above inflation after that.
On specific spending cuts, the Climate Change Reserve Fund already has about $967,000 sitting unallocated, so I'd reject any push to restore its contributions to the old $1 million a year until that backlog clears. The Community Arts Investment Program, about $800,000 a year, ranks below essential services like roads, water, and safety, and it's the kind of discretionary spending that goes first if push comes to shove.
London and District Labour Council questionnaire
What would you do to promote local public services and good union jobs in our community? Do you support door-to-door mail delivery? Explain your view.
If a City service is worth having, London residents already know about it and use it. Needing an active promotion campaign to justify its existence is itself a sign the service deserves a harder question: is it worth the tax dollars funding it?
Job creation belongs to the private sector. The City does need to employ people directly for essential services like London Transit, London Water, and City Hall itself, and the people doing that work should be compensated on par with a private-sector equivalent.
In a perfect world, door-to-door mail delivery beats a community mailbox for every household. That's a federal Canada Post decision though, outside what a City Councillor can control.
For local jobs more broadly, my focus is on what council controls: the cost and speed of getting a business open or expanded here. Every month a permit or request sits waiting, or a fee gets added to a project, is a month a local employer isn't hiring or a dollar that isn't going towards providing jobs. Removing that friction is the most direct way council can get out of a local employer's way.
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)
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.
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.
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.