The platform, in full

I will listen to the people who live with the Town’s decisions, not only to the Town staff who prepare the reports. Town staff provides valuable professional expertise but councillors are elected to represent residents and are answerable to residents, not to Town staff. Council should set the direction, ask difficult questions and ensure that administrative staff follows the direction and policies established by the Council. Professional advice should inform Council’s decisions but it should not replace the voices and lived experiences of the residents affected by those decisions. Council should not simply follow whatever is put on the table; it should question, examine and decide in the best interests of the people it represents.

The Additional Residential Unit (ARU) issue is one example of where listening to residents can lead to a better and more practical approach. Milton needs more housing, and homeowners who invest their own money to create safe and legal ARUs are contributing to that housing supply. Yet residents who have already obtained Town permits, paid the required fees, completed inspections and received approval are then required to go through another registration process, provide information the Town already has, meet additional requirements and pay another fee. If an ARU is constructed legally under a Town-issued permit, why not better integrate registration into the approval process, conduct any additional fire or safety inspections that are genuinely required and issue the registration certificate once all requirements have been satisfied? I fully support safe, legal and properly inspected housing but safety should not require unnecessary administrative duplication. Other Ontario municipalities are taking approaches that encourage homeowners to create legal additional housing, including financial incentives in municipalities such as Cambridge, Guelph and Hamilton, while Mississauga does not charge a fee to register a second unit. Milton homeowners, meanwhile, already invest thousands of dollars in construction, drawings, permits, inspections and required upgrades, and an ARU may also affect a property’s assessed value and potentially its future property taxes. Residents who follow the rules should not feel penalized for doing the right thing. The Town should inspect what needs to be inspected, collect what genuinely needs to be collected, use the information it already possesses, eliminate unnecessary duplication and make it easier, not harder, for residents to create safe and legal housing. When the process becomes unnecessarily complicated, costly or discouraging, some homeowners may choose to remain outside the approval and registration system. Milton should think outside the box and consider incentives or practical pathways that encourage owners of existing unregistered or previously unapproved basement units to come forward and bring them into compliance. That would not only help address important building and fire-safety concerns, but could also bring more housing into the legal system and potentially increase the municipal tax base where improvements affect property assessment. The goal should not simply be to penalize non-compliance, it should be to create a system that encourages compliance.

The same resident-first principle should guide how Milton plans its sports and recreational infrastructure. Town facilities should evolve with the people they are meant to serve. Milton is an increasingly diverse and changing community, and the sports our residents play are changing with it. Cricket is one clear example. Its growing popularity, particularly among young people, deserves to be reflected fairly when the Town plans fields, facilities and recreational investments. This is not about giving one sport preference over another; it is about ensuring that municipal resources keep pace with the changing recreational needs of our community. Young people should not repeatedly hear that their sport matters while waiting years for adequate places to play it. When recreational needs change, municipal planning should respond accordingly.

RESIDENTS LIVE WITH COUNCIL’S DECISIONS. THEIR VOICES SHOULD BE VALUED.

Public consultation should influence decisions, not simply explain them afterward. Milton's handling of the Additional Residential Unit (ARU) registry is a recent example. Council approved the new registration requirements and $340 fee first, and a public session with affected residents followed. I attended that session myself. Residents came prepared with concerns and suggestions, but attendees were told that changes could not be made at that stage based on their suggestions because Council had already approved the measure. That raises a simple question: why weren't the affected homeowners meaningfully consulted while their feedback could still influence the decision? Residents who had already obtained permits, paid fees, completed inspections and received Town approval had legitimate questions about duplication, additional costs and applying new requirements to existing legal ARUs. Hearing those concerns before approval might have helped Council identify the problems before residents were asked to live with them.

The same principle should apply to development, parking, roads, neighbourhood infrastructure and other major policies. When Milton reduced minimum parking requirements for apartments and condos from 1.5 to 1.0 space per unit, concerns were raised about whether Milton's transit system was sufficiently developed to support the change and whether surrounding streets would absorb the overflow. Those are precisely the questions residents should help answer before major policies reshape their neighbourhoods. Consultation should happen early enough to change the outcome, not simply satisfy a procedural requirement or explain an approved decision. When significant changes are proposed, residents should know what is being considered, what alternatives exist and what consequences are anticipated and Council should be able to demonstrate how public feedback influenced the final decision.

Ask residents before making the decision, not after the decision creates the complaints.

Milton's seniors deserve free access to recreation, transportation and community life. This is not an unrealistic idea; municipalities around us are already demonstrating that it can be done.

In Peel Region, Brampton residents aged 65+ can ride Brampton Transit free, and Brampton also provides eligible residents 65+ free access to a broad range of municipal recreation services. Mississauga residents 65+ can ride Transit free and can obtain the City's free 65+ Fit membership. And, look within our own Halton Region. Oakville Transit provides free travel for seniors 65+, while Burlington Transit also provides free Transit rides for seniors 65+. If Mississauga and Brampton can do it in Peel, and Oakville and Burlington can do it right here in Halton, Milton Seniors have every right to ask: Why not us?

I will advocate for free Milton Transit for residents aged 65+ and free access to appropriate Town recreation facilities and eligible programs for Milton seniors.

This is about more than saving a bus fare or membership fee. It is about mobility, independence, physical activity, social connection and dignity.

Build once. Build intelligently. Build for the Milton our children will inherit. Milton cannot continue planning major infrastructure only around the next development application or immediate problem. Roads, intersections, public facilities, parks, transit infrastructure and community spaces should be designed with the Milton of 50 years from now in mind.

Short-term thinking can become a very expensive long-term problem when taxpayers repeatedly pay to construct infrastructure, modify it, expand it, tear portions out and construct again. Before spending today's tax dollars, we should be asking what tomorrow's Milton will require.

Good infrastructure should solve tomorrow's problems before tomorrow's taxpayers have to pay to rebuild it.

A dangerous road does not become safer because somebody can explain why it is dangerous. Traffic is no longer an occasional inconvenience for Milton residents. It affects commuting, school runs, businesses, emergency movement and everyday quality of life. Ward 1 faces pressures involving major roads, growing neighbourhoods, downtown traffic and continuing development.

Rural Milton faces different but equally important challenges, speeding, heavy trucks, road deterioration, unsafe intersections, pedestrian gaps and congestion around corridors including Guelph Line and Campbellville Road. Residents do not need explanation of why a problem exists. They need a representative who keeps asking what is being done about it and when it will be done. Take my word for it: I will be that kind of voice.

We need transportation infrastructure designed for the Milton we are becoming, not the Milton we used to be.

Growth should bring opportunity, not a declining sense of security. My understanding is that a growing community must also remain a safe community. Public safety is not solely a policing issue. Municipal decisions involving street lighting, road design, pedestrian infrastructure, parks, trails, public spaces, traffic management and neighbourhood design all contribute to how safe people feel in their community.

Residents' concerns about crime and safety deserve serious attention rather than dismissal as somebody else's jurisdiction. I will propose and support stronger coordination between Municipal planning, Halton Region, Halton Regional Police and Community Partners while advocating for infrastructure and neighbourhood design that make our communities safer.

People should feel safe walking their streets, using their parks, operating their businesses and raising their families in Milton.

Every public dollar should produce a public result. The CN Logistics Hub is a powerful example of why we should question major expenditures. Halton municipalities reportedly spent approximately $30 million on years of legal battles opposing the project. Protecting residents was a legitimate objective but the financial strategy is still fair game for scrutiny. At what point was the likelihood of success reassessed? What did each additional stage of litigation cost? What measurable protections did taxpayers receive for approximately $30 million? And, while lawyers were fighting, why weren't practical alternatives pursued just as aggressively, including examining whether a more direct connection toward nearby Highway 407 could reduce truck impacts on Milton? Good government needs more than a legal Plan A; when tens of millions of public dollars are at stake, it needs an engineering, negotiating and financial Plan B as well.

Accountability must also begin inside municipal government itself. At Halton Region alone, the 2025 compensation budget (excluding police) increased from about $250.3 million to $268.9 million — a 7.41% increase, and the budget included 48.5 additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. I understand that growth requires additional frontline staff and specialized expertise but every new managerial or administrative position and every increase in compensation should still withstand the same test we apply to roads, transit and other services: Do we need it, what will it deliver and can taxpayers measure the result? Before increasing taxes, Council should scrutinize management layers, consultants, legal expenses, duplication and administrative growth just as carefully as it scrutinizes frontline services. I will ask these questions on your behalf as it is not the Town's money or the Region's money, it is your tax money that is involved here.

Taxpayers should not be asked for more until Council can clearly account for what it is already spending.

When development arrives before infrastructure, residents and businesses pay the price in lost time, lost customers, longer commutes and declining quality of life. Milton cannot keep approving tomorrow's population while relying on yesterday's infrastructure. Look at the Nipissing Road area, where major high-density residential development is adding hundreds of new homes to an already busy part of Milton. Thompson Road is already struggling with congestion before the full impact of the new residents and their vehicles is even felt. When infrastructure follows development instead of preparing for it, existing residents become trapped in longer commutes, parents spend more time getting children to school, transit becomes less reliable, intersections become more difficult to navigate and emergency and service vehicles compete with growing traffic. Local businesses suffer too: congestion, difficult access, inadequate parking and prolonged road construction can discourage customers and increase operating and delivery costs. Growth may benefit Milton, but existing residents and businesses should not have to absorb years of disruption while infrastructure struggles to catch up.

The same warning is visible along Derry Road, already heavily congested during peak hours while substantial development continues around the corridor. If thousands more residents and vehicles are coming, road capacity, intersections, transit, schools, parks and other community infrastructure cannot remain promises for some future date. They must be coordinated and delivered before or alongside the growth creating the demand. Otherwise we approve development today, endure congestion tomorrow, spend millions trying to fix it later and ask taxpayers and businesses to tolerate the disruption in between. That is reactive planning, and Milton deserves better.

Development should not come first and leave residents, businesses and taxpayers waiting for infrastructure to catch up. Plan it. Build it. Then grow with confidence.

A downtown cannot thrive on storefronts alone, businesses need customers walking through their doors and reasons to stay once they open. Milton's downtown should be one of the busiest and most attractive destinations in our community yet there appears to be a growing disconnect between Milton's expanding population and its historic downtown. Our population grows, subdivisions expand and thousands of new residents arrive but how effectively are we connecting those residents with their own downtown? Opening a business is not the same as building a successful business district. A business can have a beautiful storefront, invest thousands of dollars and offer a great product but it cannot survive if customers do not come. The recent closure of Cafe Depot at 252 Main Street East after just over a year in business should make us ask some difficult questions, particularly because other businesses had previously occupied and left the same location. Other downtown businesses have also closed in recent years. Every closure has its own circumstances and we should not pretend municipal policy alone determines whether a private business succeeds or fails. But, when a pattern develops, Council should be asking: Is downtown easy to reach? Is parking convenient and clearly identified? Is pedestrian movement inviting? Are residents in newer neighbourhoods being connected to downtown? Are municipal events actually translating into sustained customer traffic? And are construction and development decisions helping established businesses or making survival even harder?

Municipal government also needs to understand how apparently small decisions can affect a small business. In 2026, the owners of the Barn Door Cafe said they were not consulted before Council approved a roughly $700 fee for the seasonal patio program and they subsequently decided they could no longer afford to operate their patio. That is exactly why local businesses need a meaningful voice before policies affecting them are approved. Downtown Milton needs more than festivals, banners and slogans about shopping local. It needs a serious economic strategy that connects our growing residential population to Main Street through better access, parking, pedestrian connections, transit, coordinated construction, attractive public spaces and continuous promotion of local businesses.

Growth should not simply build new customers somewhere else in Milton, it should help bring them to the businesses already investing in the heart of our Town. A thriving downtown is not measured by how many businesses open; it is measured by how many can stay, grow and succeed.

What if getting more people onto buses became part of Milton's traffic strategy, not merely its transit strategy? Milton Transit should connect people efficiently to where they live, work, study, shop and participate in community life. Routes, frequency, transfers, shelters and connections should be designed around riders' actual needs. Rural residents need better connections with urban Milton, but they also need practical transportation options within and between rural communities.

Our bus stops deserve attention as well. In a community that experiences snow, freezing temperatures, rain, wind and summer heat, a bus stop cannot simply be a pole beside a road. Shelters are basic transit infrastructure, particularly for seniors, students, parents with children and people with disabilities.

I want Milton to think bigger. I would advocate that Milton seriously examine fare-free transit for every resident through a properly designed pilot program. To me this is not an imaginary idea. Nearby us the Town of Orangeville introduced fare-free transit as a pilot. Ridership more than doubled, and the Town extended the program through July 21, 2027 so it could continue evaluating ridership, financial, environmental and economic impacts. Why shouldn't Milton study its own pilot?

Instead of assuming the answer beforehand, establish measurable targets: ridership growth, cost per passenger, traffic impacts, service frequency, operating cost, accessibility, economic impact and resident satisfaction. Every additional resident who chooses a bus instead of a private vehicle can potentially mean one less vehicle competing for road space. At sufficient scale, stronger transit can reduce congestion pressure, parking demand, vehicle kilometres travelled and some of the pressure for continual road widening and expansion. Road infrastructure costs money to build, expand, repair, plow and maintain. Transit costs money too. The responsible question is therefore not whether fare-free transit is literally "free." The question is whether investing differently in mobility can produce better overall value for taxpayers. Let Milton test it, measure it and make the decision based on evidence.

We cannot road-widen our way out of every traffic problem. Sometimes the smartest investment in roads is giving more people a practical reason not to drive on them.

Residents’ postal code should not determine the quality of municipal attention they receive. Rural Milton pays taxes too and rural Milton deserves more than “we'll look into it.”

Rural Milton's concerns are not hypothetical, residents have been telling municipal government exactly what is wrong. In Campbellville, residents have raised concerns about traffic backing up at Guelph Line and Campbellville Road, sometimes stretching for long distances during rush hour, while heavy trucks place additional pressure on country roads that were never designed for today's traffic volumes. Residents participating in Milton's own transportation consultations identified unsafe intersections, speeding, road damage, missing pedestrian connections and inadequate turn lanes. They even requested practical solutions such as a transit pilot connecting Brookville with urban Milton and raised questions about future transportation for rural seniors who can no longer drive. Yet rural residents still cannot depend on the same transportation choices available in urban Milton. Even Milton's specialized access+ service allows rural residents to book trips between rural and urban Milton but not trips within the rural area itself. Rural residents should not have to accept isolation as the price of living outside the urban boundary.

And, connectivity too is no longer merely about convenience, it can become a public-safety issue. Rural Milton has experienced repeated thefts of telecommunications copper lines, causing costly damage and service outages. In 2025 alone, police reported more than 40 copper-wire theft incidents across Milton, followed by further rural Milton incidents in 2026. When rural residents already live with weaker communications options, losing a landline or internet connection can affect working from home, businesses, seniors and potentially access to emergency services. These communities need stronger advocacy for reliable telecommunications, safer roads, better enforcement, practical rural transit and infrastructure designed for today's traffic, not yesterday's countryside.

Rural Milton is not Milton's backyard. It is Milton and the people who live there deserve the same urgency, investment and voice at the Council table as everyone else.

“Milton has low taxes” is a convenient slogan but residents deserve the full picture, not a mantra. Milton residents repeatedly hear that “we have among the lowest property taxes.” But actual numbers tell us different stories. In 2026, Milton's residential tax rate is approximately 0.865%, while Oakville's is approximately 0.851%. In other words, Oakville's residential tax rate is actually lower than Milton's. The difference is small, but that is exactly the point: repeatedly presenting “low taxes” as though Milton enjoys some enormous tax advantage can give residents a misleading impression. Tax rates also do not tell the whole story because actual tax bills depend on property assessments. The more important question is value for money. During this Council term, residents have continued to see their tax bills increase while dealing with congested roads, infrastructure struggling to catch up with development, limited transit, delayed services and seniors paying for some services that neighbouring municipalities provide free. Instead of repeatedly telling residents how “low” their taxes are, Council should tell them what results their taxes are buying.

Before asking residents for more, Council should examine its own spending first: administrative growth, management layers, consultants, contracts, procurement, legal expenses and the enormous cost of correcting infrastructure problems after development rather than planning properly beforehand. This does not mean cutting essential frontline services. It means protecting essential services while challenging waste, duplication and avoidable costs. Families and businesses cannot simply increase their income every year because their expenses went up; they have to make choices and set priorities. Council should demonstrate the same discipline.

Stop using “low taxes” as an answer to every question about spending. The real question is value for money: What did residents pay, what did they receive, and could we have delivered better for less?

Responsible growth is not simply approving homes. It is making sure a complete community is waiting when the families arrive. I am not anti-growth. I am against growth without its predictable consequences being managed first. Milton itself recognizes in its planning policies that development should be coordinated with roads, schools, parks, transit, emergency services and other infrastructure. Yet residents continue to experience the consequences when that coordination falls behind. Look at Fourth Line, where homes were occupied while required streetlights are still not operational. The first building permit had been issued in December 2024 and residents began occupying homes in August 2025, yet the streetlights were still missing until May 2026. Council eventually acted to require streetlighting infrastructure to be installed before roads are opened for public use in future developments. That is a sensible correction but it also raises the obvious question: Why should families have to move into a neighbourhood first and municipal government fix such a basic infrastructure problem afterward? Residents are raising the same broader concerns around major developments: more than 1,000 homes proposed in the first phase of Mountainview West brought concerns about already-busy Martin Street, traffic, construction disruption and servicing; Town staff themselves identified traffic, servicing, parkland and design compatibility as issues still requiring work.

Schools provide another warning. Municipalities do not build or operate schools but municipal growth decisions help determine where thousands of new families will live and how quickly they arrive. Approving neighbourhoods and then watching children spend years in portables while permanent capacity catches up is not long-term coordination. The same applies to roads that are already congested before new towers fill up, parks that have to be searched for after neighbourhoods are built, transit that arrives after residents have become dependent on cars, and emergency services that must expand after density increases. Milton is projected to grow to more than 400,000 residents by 2051, and even the Town says that growth will require more infrastructure and services. We already know that new residents will drive, children will need schools, families will need parks, buses will need capacity and emergency services will face greater demand.

These are not surprises to be explained afterwards; they are predictable consequences to be planned beforehand. Build complete communities, not just complete subdivisions.

If we are approving the neighbourhoods and towers of tomorrow, we should design them for how families actually live today and for many families that includes a pet. Pet-friendly infrastructure should no longer mean simply building an occasional dog park somewhere in Town. As Milton becomes denser and approves more apartments, condominiums and high-rise towers, thousands of residents will live without private backyards. Where will their dogs exercise? Where will they relieve themselves? Where will owners wash muddy pets after a winter walk? And how will hundreds of pets from a high-rise interact with neighbouring parks, sidewalks and public spaces? Other municipalities are already incorporating these questions into development planning. Toronto, for example, has formal Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities that consider pet needs at the neighbourhood, building and individual-unit levels. Milton should build on these ideas and consider pet needs systematically when reviewing major new developments, not leave them entirely to chance or deal with the consequences after residents move in.

Modern pet-friendly design can include dedicated outdoor relief areas, properly designed dog runs, pet-washing and grooming stations, drinking/hydration points, waste stations, double-gated entrances, safe fencing, shaded areas and seating for owners. In high-rise developments, pet spaces can be incorporated at ground level, on landscaped terraces or, where appropriate, rooftops; pet-wash areas can be located near secondary entrances and elevators so muddy animals do not have to travel through main lobbies and common areas. Trails and new parks can also be designed with appropriate separation between pets, cyclists, children and other users. These features are not simply luxuries for dog owners: they can mean cleaner sidewalks and common areas, less pressure on public parks, fewer conflicts between users and more responsible pet ownership. As Milton approves the next generation of towers, subdivisions, parks and trails, I want us to ask one more question at the planning table: “Where do the pets fit into this design?”

They share our homes, our walks and our town. Smart infrastructure should recognize them before construction begins, not after.

A road may be cleared on the Town's checklist but if the plow leaves your driveway blocked by a wall of snow, the resident's problem is not solved. Municipal performance should be measured by what residents actually experience, not simply by what a service report says. Snow clearing and driveway windrows are a perfect example. During major snow events, residents understandably want roads cleared quickly but the frustration does not necessarily end when the plow arrives. A plow can clear the street while pushing a heavy ridge of compacted snow across the end of every driveway it passes. Residents then have to dig themselves out again, sometimes shortly after they have already cleared their driveway. For seniors, people with disabilities, parents trying to get children to school and residents trying to get to work or medical appointments, that blocked driveway can become the final barrier between a cleared road and actually being able to use it. Milton's own 2026 winter-service call information showed seniors contacting the Town because they were unable to clear these windrows. The Town does have a windrow-removal program for eligible seniors and persons with disabilities, but it is a limited program with eligibility requirements and service conditions. Why should we simply accept driveway blockage as an unavoidable consequence of snow clearing when equipment and operating methods exist that can reduce windrows? Milton should examine modern plows, movable gates or blades and other practices being used elsewhere, compare their costs and benefits, and determine where they could practically be introduced.

The same results-first standard should apply to other municipal services, potholes, road repairs, drainage, sidewalks, signs, parks, permits, inspections and maintenance requests. Residents should be able to report an issue, receive a tracking number, know the expected response time and see when the work has actually been completed. Genuine emergencies and exceptional circumstances will sometimes cause delays, and those should be explained openly. But explanations cannot become substitutes for performance. Snow clearing should mean improving access, not simply moving the snow from the road onto residents' driveways. Clear the road, reduce the windrow, keep the driveway accessible wherever reasonably possible—and measure municipal service by the result residents experience, not simply by whether the truck passed their house.