Josh Morgan

The recent audit is right that London is not currently on track to meet its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target, and the auditor identified renewed commitment, additional funding, and provincial-level changes to electricity generation as what’s needed to close the gap. I agree with that assessment. My first Multi-Year Budget created and funded London’s first-ever Climate Emergency Reserve Fund specifically to support the Climate Emergency Action Plan, however, through the budget process, a majority of Council reduced the allocations to the fund by a significant amount. I drafted a letter to the Minister indicating the challenges the provincial changes to energy generation has created in our ability to meet out targets. As we electrify our fleets, the credit we receive is only as good as the generation inputs into the grid.

I also sit on the national Green Municipal Fund Board, which has directed hundreds of millions of dollars to climate projects in communities across Canada, including London. Going forward, I want to ensure we continue implementing the Climate Emergency Action Plan while also continuing our advocacy, through my role chairing the national Big City Mayors Caucus and member of the Ontario Big City Mayors Caucus, on the provincial electricity-generation piece that’s outside any single municipality’s control.

Bronagh Morgan

My campaign is founded on addressing the inconsistencies, inefficiencies, shortcomings, and potential gaps in the way City Hall administers itself. So this is one of the written commitments that would fall under that review. It is a waste of time and resources to make a commitment, plan, declaration, etc. (often for political posturing) that has no teeth and realizes no impact. If we made certain commitments, they need to be funded and implemented. The way to ensure we do that without vastly increasing taxes is also in the paperwork. What did we commit to? Does that still reflect the best interests of our City long-term? Who is the best person/team to get that work done?

Then do it, and enforce achievement with accountability. That is not oversimplifying, and this is coming from a lawyer with 26 years at the bar.

Dan Lenart

The Greenway Pollution Plant Is at Capacity, and will Need to be greatly Expanded 2X or 3X if “Growth” Keeps on this Very Fast Rate. If not, toilets will back up, and Basements will keep flooding, especially in heavy rain downfalls. Decoupling of Sanitary and Storm Sewers started some 16 Years ago (+ sewer surcharge) from the Downtown going out towards Commissioners, replacing 100 year old pipes in some cases. But this has been a very slow process, and much untreated sewage continues to get discharged into the Thames River when it rains. Can this not be speeded up, or is “Infrastructure” like this too expensive, environment be damned?

CEAP Report=”Weter, Warmer, Wilder”

Lawrence-Zachary Howe

The recent MNP independent audit exposed the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) as nothing more than a tool for political points, suffering from blatant corruption, unrealistic scope, and serving as a fantastic example of why transparency is vital. City staff, as standard procedure, marked off internal administrative milestones as “environmental progress” while real emissions outcomes went unmeasured – representing a total failure of integrity. Environmental plans first and foremost must be actionable, not created to sound good as a slogan or at a meeting. If elected, I will dismantle this hollow metrics framework. I will demand absolute, auditable transparency and realign the plan’s scope around measurable, achievable goals that are actually funded, rather than maintaining an impossible wishlist.

Hadleigh McAlister

The Climate Action Reserve Fund contributions have been greatly reduced over the last four years. To ensure that we can fund initiatives in the CEAP a discussion needs to be had through the multi-year budget on restoring funding that allows the city to meet its climate objectives.

Shawn Lewis

It is important to clarify that the recent audit also identified that there are many factors that are completely outside the city’s control, such as the province’s increased use of natural gas for electricity generation. It is also important to recognize that the CEAP is aspirational, the city cannot achieve the goals in the CEAP itself, there is a significant component of individual actions and choices by residents themselves. Home heating for example is the second leading contributor to GHGs, but the city cannot force homeowners to swap out gas furnaces for heat pumps, nor require specific standards in new builds as the province has limited the municipality’s role in that. The Council can continue to ensure the city leads by example on things within our direct control such as electrification of our existing fleet, high energy efficiency standards in all new city owned builds (as we did with the East Lions Community Centre), but we cannot force those changes on private residents. The city also can play a role in terms of naturalization of some of our park lands to support native species plants and wildlife to support biodiversity. It is also important the city complete the work of separating combined sewers so as to not continue to have raw sewage entering the Thames River.

Zak Rahim

My campaign is built around Public Accountability and fixing how City Hall administers itself, and this falls into that platform plank. A climate commitment where there isn’t funding, no responsible staff, and without clear metrics to evaluate success is just another empty promise. When elected, I’d start by auditing the existing CEAP commitment against four tests: what does it cost, who’s the responsibility party for implementing, what metrics we are tracking success by, and what happens if we fall short of our targets? Commitments that pass these tests get funded and a named responsible party within City Hall, who reports to stakeholders and Londoners directly.

When commitments do not pass that test, either we can properly fund them and re-commit to them, or we can drop them, because keeping targets on paper without proper funding, staff resources, reporting and metrics for success is just another empty promise. I have heard loud and clear that Londoners are not looking for more promises, but demanding we keep and deliver the ones already made.

Bob Wright

This is a difficult question to answer; we declared an emergency and yet we have never provided anywhere near the resources to assess the situation let alone address it. To start we could move to retain the “Emergency” as opposed to dropping it as is currently planned. Then Council needs to seriously assess whether we are merely paying lip service or are willing to provide the funding to properly chart our progress (or lack thereof) and to provide at least some funding to meet our goals.

Mario Jozic

I would require a funded implementation plan identifying timelines, responsible departments and measurable outcomes. Council should receive regular public reports showing spending, emissions reductions and progress toward each target. Programs delivering strong results should be expanded; those that do not should be reconsidered.

Rani Prunner

If elected, I would establish clearer guidelines and more concise language to measure outcomes, with specific targets to highlight meaningful progress. We should also establish stronger climate commitments, as we have access to implement them that are sitting underutilized in our City (ie. the Anaerobic Biogas Digester facility).

Mary Blake Rose

One challenge that London faces with the CEAP is simply funding it. This problem is not unique to London, but it’s the reality of the situation. As part of the multi-year budget process, we have to make business cases for some of the highest-impact actions identified in the CEAP. We also need to pursue funding opportunities from senior levels of government whenever it’s possible.

As far as the aforementioned highest-impact actions go, clearly identifying and prioritizing them is another important step in meeting the commitments laid out in the CEAP. At the municipal level, the most significant opportunities for greenhouse gas reductions come from buildings and transportation.

On buildings, I believe that the City needs to lead by example with our city-owned buildings. Retrofits and green building solutions not only lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but they also create jobs in our community. As a city, we can also take a leadership role in implementing solutions that operate on a large scale, such as district heating. The Bolzmann Institute in Toronto has done extensive research on district heating, as well as the practice of municipal heating planning.

On transportation, transit and active transportation are key. Our Mobility Master Plan sets us in the right direction, but in my opinion, the plan’s mode-share targets are not ambitious enough. I also feel the need to highlight one moment where London really did miss the mark on reducing emissions from transportation, and that was the decision not to go forward with the North and West Bus Rapid Transit lines. That decision pre-dated the current Council and the CEAP, but it’s important to highlight nonetheless. If we want to hit our emissions-reduction targets, we need to be a bit more ambitious than that.

In closing, I’d like to point to the importance of not considering climate action in a silo. Just as all decisions made by the City should be viewed through a climate lens, CEAP initiatives should be viewed in the context of all the benefits they bring to Londoners. Building retrofits, for example, don’t just lead to reductions in GHG emissions; they also create jobs in our community. Similarly, transit and active transportation aren’t just lower-emissions modes of transportation than travelling by personal vehicle; they’re also much more affordable than travelling by car. Emphasizing all of the benefits of green initiatives makes it easier to make business cases for them during the budgeting process. It also makes it easier to get Londoners on board, which is a key component to meeting our CEAP commitments.

Corrine Rahman

If re-elected, I’d work with Council to review the audit findings with the new term of Council. I believe there are key findings from the report that should be acted upon. I believe that funding for CEAP actions through a reserve fund isn’t the correct approach especially during budget discussions. Reserves are often looked at as accounts where unspent balances can be used to offset increases. I think CEAP actions should be budget business cases and debated on the merits during the multi-year and budget updates.

Samuel Trosow

The City’s failure to meet the goals set in the CEAP must be cause for great concern for the next council. Council’s relationship to the plan has been largely passive, but meeting the goals of the plan must be a regular and recurring item on the agenda of council standing committees. More of our decisions need to be viewed through a climate lens, especially those bearing on emission levels, air pollution and development applications.

All program areas should develop a more aggressive multi-year plan, starting early in the council term, with more frequent opportunities for active public feedback. The broad scientific expertise available in London could be better utilized and the city should be more open to working with local organizations. The Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) has made significant contributions, but other advisory committees have been abolished or suspended (Transportation, Cycling, Animal Welfare) and should be restored.

While the EarthFest celebration is an important annual event, this type of programming needs to be ongoing throughout the year drawing on London’s extensive local expertise and geared to making contributions to the city’s evaluation framework.

Ian Leishman

I believe measuring what is getting done at City Hall and whether it is producing results is critically important. Accountability means doing what you say you are going to do and when you’re going to do it.

A key principle of my campaign is that I won’t make promises I can’t keep. What I can promise is that I will work hard for Ward 6 and London, push for clear and measurable reporting, and ask tough questions when targets aren’t being met, like with the CEAP.

Environmental responsibility should be part of how we make all decisions. We need realistic goals, measurable results, transparency, and follow-through.

Naomi Nadea

If elected, I will support stronger accountability for London’s Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP). Climate commitments need measurable targets, timelines, dedicated funding, and transparent reporting so residents can see whether the City is actually achieving the results it promised.

I believe Council should regularly assess progress, identify where targets are being missed, and establish corrective measures rather than allowing climate commitments to remain aspirational.

I also support restoring adequate funding to the Climate Change Reserve Fund and ensuring that those funds are used specifically for legitimate climate mitigation and adaptation projects.

Most importantly, we need to harness one of our greatest natural resources: the sun.

I 100% support solar energy and the expansion of solar rebates and incentives for homeowners, apartment buildings, hospitals, community facilities, businesses, cooling and warming centres, and affordable housing.

I would also encourage Londoners to explore off-grid and energy-independent solar living where practical and permitted. Solar panels combined with battery storage can give households and community facilities greater energy resilience while reducing dependence on conventional energy sources.

The City should promote education, incentives, and programs that make renewable energy more accessible—not just to wealthy homeowners, but to ordinary Londoners.

Djuma Sharifu

I support London’s climate commitments, but commitments need to translate into measurable results. If elected, I would support clear targets, regular progress reports, and greater transparency so residents can see what the City has accomplished and where improvements are still needed.

I also believe Council should make decisions based on reliable information. Environmental issues can involve complex scientific and technical questions, and councillors should seek advice from qualified professionals and organizations with expertise in those areas before making important decisions.

For me, environmental responsibility means combining ambitious goals with accountability, evidence, and practical implementation.

Germán Gutiérrez

If elected, I will treat the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) as an important roadmap and not simply as an aspirational document. This involves these three concrete changes in focus:

1st. Turning the CEAP key performance indicators into a true tool for accountability.

This would be done by requiring quarterly public updates on CEAP performance indicators, with a clear status (on track, delayed, under review) for each of the 200 actions contained in the Action Plan, plus explanations and corrective steps for any delays.

Other related actions: Tie senior management performance evaluations and budget approvals to the progress on CEAP indicators (GHG reductions, mode share, building energy use, tree canopy, etc.). Urge and insist on independent auditing and transparent community oversight.

2nd Establish an independent climate accountability panel—including representatives from groups like TREA, health experts, Indigenous partners, youth, and labour council to review CEAP progress annually and issue a joint public report.

3d. Mandate that any major capital project (roads, facilities, housing) include a climate impact statement showing alignment—or misalignment—with CEAP targets.

Budgeting and implementation that match the emergency.

Require that each CEAP action have a responsible department, timeline, and dedicated funding line in the multi‑year budget, with climate co‑benefits (equity, health, local jobs) explicitly measured.

Expand community‑level programs (retrofits, transit, active transportation, urban forestry) where modelling already shows net financial benefits to Londoners over time.

In short: Establish clear metrics, independent oversight, and budgets that reflect the words “urgent priority.”

service or are willing to provide the funding to properly chart our progress (or lack thereof) and to provide at least some funding to meet our goals.

Dan Meinen

The audit found what I’ve been saying about City Hall generally: London is good at making plans and weak at checking whether they deliver. The climate plan should be held to the same standard as everything else.

I’d support three things. First, a public dashboard on london.ca showing every CEAP action, what it costs, who’s responsible, and what it’s achieved. Second, a plain annual report to Council on emissions and progress, no burying the bad news in appendices. Third, spend money on doing the work, not re-studying it. Before Council funds a new climate study, staff should explain what’s changed since the last one. If we can’t measure it, we can’t manage it.

Sam Hajar

The recent audit for Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) highlights the need for clearer outcomes, stronger implementation controls and more direct accountability. If elected, I would require the following:

-A four-year implementation plan

-A public accountability outline that lists actions that have started and results that have been achieved.

-All climate proposals must be included in the City’s financial budget.

-Require independent reviews of the City’s CEAP to identify the implementation progress.

My objective would be straightforward: establish clear responsibilities, fund the highest-impact actions, publish honest results and change course when the evidence shows that London is falling behind.

Waseem Kazzah

London’s climate commitments should be accompanied by clear goals, measurable performance indicators, and regular public reporting. I support prioritizing projects that deliver measurable environmental benefits while ensuring responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Transparency and accountability are essential so residents can see the progress being made.

Kamrul Ahsan (Kam)

Research notes:

Here is an article that discusses the audit

Audit uncovers inconvenient truth behind London’s climate ‘emergency’ action plan Excerpt from article:

• “The five high-risk observations identified in the audit report:
  • The CEAP is descriptive, not directive. The plan reflects work already happening but does not shape priorities, sequencing, or resource allocation.There’s limited funding allocated to support the implementation of many CEAP actions. Limited funding approved through the Multi-Year Budget constrains city hall’s ability to implement the full scope of CEAP actions.Overstates progress by city staff because ‘On Track’ and ‘Complete’ designations frequently reflect administrative milestones, not measurable outcomes.Implementation capacity is distributed across municipal departments. No formal assessment has been conducted to confirm whether this capacity is sufficient to achieve CEAP commitments.
  • The CEAP’s scope exceeds what can be delivered within the approved funding and resources, limiting its effectiveness as a prioritized and actionable implementation plan.”

• “I think a lot of it has to do with budget and resourcing,” she says. “Staff asked for about $45 million over four years to fully implement the Climate Emergency Action Plan, and at first (council) gave them about $1 million a year. And then through our budget deliberations, that’s been cut down to $182,000 a year.”
• “The auditor cites the provincial government’s decision to generate more electricity with natural gas as a significant contributor to London missing its 2030 target.”
• “Among the strengths identified in the audit:
  • Regulatory and Infrastructure Progress in Buildings & Transportation Departments (elimination of parking minimums, mandatory EV charging in new developments, BRT construction)Waste Diversion and Landfill Gas Management (green bin implementation, increasing methane captured at W12A landfill)Climate Considerations Embedded in Core Planning and Asset Systems (Mobility Master Plan, Corporate Asset Management Plan)Building Energy Retrofits
  Community and Business Engagement Infrastructure” Here is the Climate Emergency Action Plan Performance Dashboard: CEAP Performance Dashboard

Suggestion:

The answer to this question has already been answered by critics and news articles. The most important ones that should be focused on are:

• Clear and transparent updates on progress of climate change policy. Wording must be direct and simple, and the user interface must be easy to navigate and easy to understand.
• Progress should be measured by the effects/consequences of policies enacted, not just by its movement through municipal bureaucracy.
• Goals should be more realistic, and planning should focus on phases. Example:
  • Phase 1: increase greenery in the city
  • Phase 2: increase and update public transportation.

Jonathan Sher

The Climate Emergency Action Plan aims to reduce car trips, a goal that requires Council to support stronger transit and active transportation. While we can hope the two legs of BRT being built will help, we must do more, including boosting conventional transit to areas of the city not served by BRT. We must also lobby the Ontario government to stop limiting options such as requirements to build green roofs. The CEAP is aspirational; can we convince council to support measures for new city building such as solar panels, geothermal heating and green roofs, and can those be done in a way that keeps manageable the capital and operating costs?

Coralia Tudor

Below are ways in which I will support the implementation of each area of the Climate Emergency Action Plan and how I will ensure that it is measured and that accountability exists

Engaging, Inspiring and Learning from People – Ensure there is continued public education at events, schools and public libraries. Run workshops throughout the city on specific topics with resources to help implement initiatives. Run incentive programs (rain barrels, rain garden plants, keeping enviro depot fees low) .

Taking Action Now (Household Actions) – I will continue encouraging energy reduction, and make it easier for the homeowner to recycle items like batteries and lights by increasing drop off locations to include local schools, libraries, and grocery stores. Work with auto shops to allow for drop off of hazardous liquids (oil, coolant, etc.) work with hardware and paint centers to have paint recycling drop off. Keep enviro depot fees low and have free days for materials not picked up by city waste management to help eliminate illegal dumping.

Transforming Buildings and Development – I will work with city planning and the engineering department to allow for easy modification to smart roof solutions (capturing rain water to use for non-drinking uses such as toilets, and watering gardens, as well as capturing water to let out during non peak times to help prevent flooding and overwhelming the sewage system).

Encourage developers to implement green construction (include rain barrels, or other water recycling, use materials that are recyclable, made of recycled material and have long life (metal roofs, smart decking and fencing solutions, solar panel installation as an option on new builds, (new solar glass windows) light fixtures with replaceable LEDs, permeable driveway options, tree planting/landscaping) . Planting smart around buildings with deciduous trees to reduce heat entering into buildings in the summer (lower AC use) and increase heat in the winter. Utilize better rain water management through environmentally conscious water gardens.

Transforming Transportation and Mobility-

Make a better public transit system with central pickup areas that go to popular public events/destinations to reduce the number of drivers and parking required, free public transit for children under 19. Pullout for the bus to leave the main road for loading and unloading of passengers (reduce traffic congestion) larger bus shelters.

Add electric bicycle rentals throughout the city, downtown, public libraries, shopping malls/plazas to help people get around town without the need of a car/bus.

Increase the number of bike lanes and make safer bike lanes on all major roads in the city.

Transforming Consumption and Waste as Part of the Circular Economy – I will continue the compost program and expand it (perhaps a separate container for pet waste and explore option to create bio-fuel (similar to how farmers use cow manure to make energy)) encourage more buy nothing facebook groups, or charitable donation groups for reusable items, offer repair workshops at libraries and community centers and take items like bikes, scooters, and other sporting goods at more locations like libraries, fire stations, and community centers for repair and redistribution.

Implementing Natural and Engineered Climate Solutions and Carbon Capture -Continue planting more trees – ensuring the right kind of tree is planted in the right space so it doesn’t need to be cut down or die. Allow residents to remove trees from private property provided they replace the tree either in their yard or on public property (city planted tree in designated green space (fee will apply)),

Encourage cover crops for farming through education and incentives. Capturing rain water (farms for irrigation, residential for watering plants)

Implement a by-law – No more watering the grass. We have cool season lawns, they go dormant in the heat of summer, that is ok, save the water for trees and plants.

Implement filters on street gutters to capture waste so it doesn’t enter into our waterways.

I will implement street vacuums to collect fallen leaves to prevent them from ending up in our waterways, and have the leaves dropped off to be composed.

Adapting and Making London More Resilient/ Advancing Knowledge, Research and Innovation – attend energy conferences and bring back new initiatives to the city. Be progressive by working with the university and college to create leading initiatives as well as other innovative thinkers.

Measuring, Monitoring and Providing Feedback- This is a wonderful opportunity for summer students jobs for students 18-26 to promote/research/and record information on environmental initiatives to ensure compliance. Students will attend public events and run workshops to educate the public, they will research new initiatives under academic supervision with support from city staff, they will attend properties in an inspection capacity to ensure compliance on programs, permits to cut trees and other initiatives (implemented by builders or residents)

Matt Millar

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?

Anna Hopkins

I was pleased to be part of the Council that approved CEAP. The next Council will undertake a new Strategic Strategy as well as a 4-year budget. There needs to be funding associated with CEAP to move recommendations forward. The City’s Economic Prosperity Plan and Master Mobility Plan which were both approved by this Council must also align with CEAP.

Lois Margaret Ward

I will use the CEAP as a lens through which to assess and vote on all by laws, policies, re-zoning requests, etc.

Elizabeth Peloza

A plan is nice, but without adequate funding, successful implementation and achievement of its goals will be difficult. Actions I will take if re-elected will be to work towards restoring funding to the Climate Change Reserve Fund.

Andrew Cook

London’s Climate Emergency Action Plan contains more than 200 actions, and the City now publishes progress information through annual reports and a public dashboard.

The recent audit concern is therefore important: listing activities is not the same as demonstrating results.

If elected, I would push for each major climate commitment to have:

• a clearly identified responsible department;
• a public timeline and budget;
• a measurable baseline and target;
• regular progress reporting in plain language; and
• an explanation when a target is missed or a strategy changes.

Council should not simply approve plans and assume implementation will follow. It must ask hard questions, understand the reports before it, and measure whether outcomes are improving.

My approach is straightforward: listen before choosing, explain the decision, report the results honestly, and change course when reality demands it.

David Ferreira

I strongly believe London needs to continue doing more to address climate change, but the recent audit is an important reminder that having a Climate Emergency Action Plan is not enough. I have made these points at Council before the recent Audit, and I wasn’t surprised to see the audits findings considering some of the decisions made this past 4 years. We need to be able to demonstrate that the actions in that plan are actually producing measurable results.

I would support implementing the audit recommendations by making sure major CEAP actions have clear baselines, measurable targets, timelines and responsibility for delivery.

Our reporting should focus not simply on whether an initiative has been completed, but whether it has actually reduced emissions, increased climate resilience or produced the environmental outcome it was intended to achieve. The audit identified exactly this need for stronger indicators, baselines and targets.

I also think there needs to be a stronger connection between the commitments Council makes and the budget decisions we make. Council has at times deferred or reduced funding for climate initiatives, and when we do that we also delay the results. These decisions have been based on political beliefs, financial constraints and a general lack of the simple majority prioritizing our climate actions. If Council establishes a target, we should identify what it will take to reach it, what it will cost, what the City can realistically control and then make those choices transparently through the budget and commit to them.

I would also continue to build climate considerations into the everyday work of City Hall.

When we build infrastructure, replace City buildings or vehicles, approve development or make major capital investments, we should be considering both emissions and how those investments will stand up to future climate conditions.

During this term, I have consistently supported climate and environmental action, including protecting CEAP funding, stronger Green Development Standards and broader site alteration protections. I have also tried to connect climate policy with transit, housing, infrastructure and economic development rather than treating it as a separate issue.

Sarah Lehman

If elected, I would push for every major climate commitment to have a clear timeline, responsible department, and measurable outcome. The public CEAP dashboard tracks progress on 81 indicators so far, and if an action is delayed, the public should be told why there is a delay and what the new timeline looks like.

I also want climate impacts considered when we make major decisions about transportation, development, infrastructure, and the municipal budget. We shouldn’t approve something one year and then discover later that it works against our climate goals.

Josh Morgan

London’s growth strategy, and mine, starts from The London Plan’s core direction to grow inward and upward: intensifying development in areas where there is existing infrastructure. That’s not just a preference, it’s official policy, alongside the Plan’s explicit commitments to protect farmlands and to protect environmental areas, hazard lands, and natural resources. I am very proud of our record where last year we achieved a 54% intensification rate, which far exceeds the ambitious 45% in the London Plan. We have also approved new developments that bring multiple hectares of buffer lands under the control of the municipality, including along the edges of the Westminster Ponds. This allows us to protect those lands in perpetuity. As we deliver the housing London needs, I want that growth to keep happening primarily through intensification and conversion of underused land, like our Office-to-Residential Conversion program downtown, rather than at the expense of the natural heritage system and agricultural land at our boundary. That being said, I also think we need to think about growth from a wider perspective. As a regional leader, we know that when London restricts growth within its growth boundary, it pushes growth out onto farmland in the small rural communities that surround London, where there is no transit and exceptionally expensive water and wastewater investments that are then required in those communities. We need to care about growth and its impacts on a regional level and not just withing the City.

Bronagh Morgan

No development in ESAs, full stop. There is an entire downtown full of possibility and when you make the bylaws, contracts, and policies work the way they are supposed to, the people who control the land and properties in the downtown will want to build/renovate there.

Dan Lenart

Developers have been given a Green Light to Build, but “Off Market”, “Low Cost”, and “Affordable” Housing – especially for Our Most Vulnerable Street Folk – is desperately Needed as ‘Encampments’ along the river have been targeted for CIR (Coordinated Informed Response) Harassment and Bullying by City Hall, and their New “Special” constables ($2 Million).

Lawrence-Zachary Howe

My position is that the city needs to focus on infrastructure that integrates smoothly into its ecosystem, ensuring its natural areas are protected without inhibiting necessary local development. The Trimodal Port plan I invented to create a new revenue stream that is separate from property taxes, (check my website), would for example require that new buildings be designed to emit zero pollution, and old ones would be required to reduce their emissions to zero but on a timescale consistent with the operational savings and value-added efficiency the Trimodal Port brings.

I have and will continue to be a vocal advocate for our green spaces, ESAs, and agricultural lands. It is important that we protect these lands for London’s biodiversity and long-term environmental sustainability. As a member of the Middlesex-London Food Policy Council and the County/City liaison committee I have advocated for the protection of agricultural lands. I successfully secured new funding for community gardens in the last multi-year budget because I want Londoners to be able to have access to public land to grow their own food. I am proud that Ward 1 has many community organizations working to address food security in London. I have been impressed with Urban Roots operation and would like to explore having more urban farms in the city to give Londoners greater access to fresh local produce.

The city has been achieving in recent years nearly a 50/50 split between green field development and infill projects and efforts need to continue in that vein, even when infill runs up against NIMBY opposition. We have made infill projects more viable with changes to planning policies and in some incentives (including brownfield mitigation grants, and the office to residential conversion program). However, I do not agree with the position that the city needs to protect agricultural lands from growth because

Ex-Urban growth is a very real phenomena. When you prohibit growth within the city limits and particularly within the Urban Growth Boundary, you FORCE people into the smaller communities in the county; Dorchester, Thorndale, Komoka, Mount Brydges, etc. Not only does that sacrifice very active farmland (and often more family owned farmland than you find in the city limits which is often leased), but you actually increase GHG emissions in the area through longer commute times as many of those Ex-Urban homes are providing housing to people still working in London and commuting in daily. You also further strain infrastructure planning and cost because while still using our infrastructure, those Ex-Urban residents are no longer contributing to the property tax base to maintain infrastructure. That is the reality.

Our natural areas in public ownership are already protected in ESA designations, with appropriate planning buffers.

We need to be building density, as our choice isn’t between growth and protecting green space; rather, it’s between building up or building out. Too often, London chooses to increase the Built Area Boundary and the Urban Growth Boundary, contributing to urban sprawl. We need to invest in the corridors that connect Ward 3 to the downtown core by building up, taller, denser, walkable/bikeable communities, rather than building neighbourhoods on the outskirts. When we build density, within the existing core and corridors connecting to the core, we protect our biodiversity while also providing more housing. The choice is not between building the much-needed housing or protecting our biodiversity; it’s using the land we’ve already built services for instead of paying to extend further out.

Bob Wright

The City needs to protect and preserve our Environmentally Sensitive Areas. We need to review if any areas need additional protection to preserve biodiversity and any threatened species of concern. We should encourage intensification over new development and ensure that any new development meets or exceeds the required allocation for park land and natural areas.

Mario Jozic

London should prioritize infill and development on vacant or underused land while protecting environmentally significant areas and productive farmland. Environmental assessments must occur early, infrastructure must keep pace with development, and growth should incorporate trees, parks, stormwater management, habitat connections and climate resilience.

Randi Prunner

The City should focus first on repurposing existing unused buildings and structures instead of expanding into natural areas, agricultural lands and biodiverse systems. We have plenty of underutilized structures that sit derelict, that could be repurposed first before any expansion into necessary biodiverse lands is required.

Mary Blake Rose

I believe that growing inwards and upwards is key. Increasing density in areas like the transit villages allows us to build the housing we need while protecting natural areas and agricultural lands. I believe that part of an overall environmentally-minded approach to development is letting urban areas be urban so that we can protect environmentally significant areas and farmland.

I also believe that environmentally-minded development means protecting and expanding our urban tree canopy, increasing the presence of native plants in our city, and effectively managing stormwater. There’s a lot of grass and pavement in London. There’s room to build new housing while protecting land that needs to be protected and improving our urban ecological surroundings.

Corrine Rahman

I do believe that the next term of Council needs to look at new data to support the ongoing discussions about growth. New Census data will help. We know we need housing of all types but we need to prioritize affordable, deeply affordable and supportive housing in our community. As it relates to the environment, I think if we look at intensifying areas that are serviced and can support the growth (transit enabled areas), those on existing rapid transit corridors, in our downtown, we can put growth in areas that are more equipped to handle it and protect our natural areas.

Samuel Trosow

The current council has not adequately balanced pressures for increased housing with environmental concerns. Too much emphasis has been placed on numerical goals for approvals without a corresponding regard for environmental and infrastructure sustainability. The next council must adjust this imbalance to better account for protecting natural heritage, mitigating traffic and congestion impacts, and protecting agricultural lands. These concerns should be built into the city’s review process for all planning applications. For example, traffic studies need to be improved to take into account the cumulative effects of all activities in an area, not just the traffic that will be generated by the singular property.

The city must also adopt a clear protocol for implementing the city’s obligation to consult with indigenous communities with respect to significant development applications. This duty to consult goes beyond the general notice and comment framework in the Planning Act.

The extension of the Urban Growth Boundary approved by council needs to be reviewed in terms of better protecting natural and agricultural areas.

Ian Leishman

We need to address London’s housing crisis through responsible development that aligns with our planning and zoning framework, and at the same time, our environmentally significant areas, agricultural lands, parks, and green spaces are precious and limited. We can find ways to build more housing, but once these natural spaces are lost, they are extremely difficult to replace.

As London grows, we should make sure to have more parks and green spaces in our plans, protect biodiversity and our tree canopy, expand trails and the Thames Valley Parkway, and give people more opportunities to walk, cycle, and enjoy nature. Growth should make London a better Forest City, with the housing we need, while protecting as best we can, the trees, clean air, green spaces, and natural areas that make our city a great place to live.

Naomi Nadea

London needs more housing, but our growth must be responsible.

I support increasing housing supply, including affordable and higher-density housing, while protecting environmentally significant areas, wetlands, woodlands, agricultural lands, biodiversity, and important natural corridors.

We should prioritize smart intensification and complete communities where appropriate, while ensuring that new development is supported by public transit, walking and cycling infrastructure, green space, trees, stormwater management, and climate-resilient infrastructure. We should not have to choose between housing and the environment. We should build housing in ways that protect both.

Djuma Sharifu

I believe London can grow while protecting our environment. We need more housing and infrastructure, but growth should be planned responsibly and should take into account natural areas, agricultural lands, biodiversity, and the long-term sustainability of our city.

I would support development that makes appropriate use of existing infrastructure and encourages thoughtful growth within the urban area, while protecting environmentally significant areas.

Most importantly, I would not make these decisions based on assumptions or political pressure. Development and environmental decisions should be informed by qualified planners, engineers, ecologists, environmental scientists, and other professionals with relevant expertise.

I believe we can build the London we need without unnecessarily sacrificing the natural environment we value.

Sam Hajar

London needs more affordable housing and substantially more housing in general. Since ward 7 is the fastest growing area in London we must balance the need for housing with infrastructure, and environmentally sensitive areas.

I encourage and direct more development toward existing neighbourhoods that are well established with transit corridors, sufficient infrastructure, commercial areas where roads, utilities, services, and community amenities already exist.

I would establish enforced protections for wetlands, woodlands, river corridors, floodplains, significant wildlife habitat, Environmentally Significant Areas, and prime agricultural land.

Infrastructure planning must also occur alongside housing approvals rather than after neighbourhoods are built.

I would also require public reporting on measurable indicators.

By prioritizing intensification, protecting environmentally protected lands, coordinating infrastructure, and measuring results publicly, we can create more housing while safeguarding London’s environmental future.

Germán Gutiérrez

Balancing city growth with protection of natural and agricultural lands means treating land as a finite ecological asset, not just a development opportunity. I would prioritize a “climate‑first” planning lens by embedding CEAP targets directly into the London Plan and all secondary plans, so that new growth must, protect watersheds and support compact, transit‑oriented communities.

This, of course, implies a firm protection of natural heritage and farmland.

I will struggle to strengthen and enforce urban growth boundaries; resist sprawl that fragments habitat and increases car dependence and promote actions to designate and protect key ecological corridors along the Thames and its tributaries, working with conservation authorities and groups like TREA to restore riverbank buffers (riparian buffers), wetlands, and pollinator habitat.

I will promote and defend housing that supports climate and equity by focusing new housing plans on infill, gentle density, and complete communities—where daily needs are reachable by walking, cycling, and transit—rather than promoting greenfield expansion.

I will link affordable housing investments to high‑frequency transit corridors and low‑carbon building standards, so climate action and social justice move together and make sure that growth is measured not only in units built, but in biodiversity preserved, emissions reduced, and health improved.

Dan Meinen

The best protection for farmland and natural areas is the order we grow in. Council just added 1,476 hectares to the urban growth boundary, much of it next to Ward 7. I’ve committed to releasing that land in phases, only as water, sewer, and transit capacity gets built and not all at once. Phasing isn’t just fiscally responsible, It’s the strongest practical protection for agricultural land and the Natural Heritage System, because land that isn’t yet released isn’t yet lost and it gives us time to do the studies and report honestly on long-term sustainability before decisions become permanent.

The other half is using land we’ve already serviced. I support by-right approval for medium-density housing along Hyde Park, Sunningdale, and Wonderland where the pipes and transit already exist. Every home built on an existing corridor is a home that doesn’t pave over countryside. Density where the infrastructure is, phased growth where it isn’t, and firm protection of the Natural Heritage System.

Waseem Kazzah

We do not have to choose between housing and the environment. I support directing growth toward existing urban areas, transit corridors, and underutilized lands while protecting environmentally significant areas, river corridors, and productive agricultural land. By building complete, walkable communities where infrastructure already exists, we can accommodate growth while preserving the natural assets that make London unique.

Jonathan Sher

The city could strengthen protection of natural heritage beyond measures already in place. Short of buying land the city has few legislative paths to control new development on agricultural lands that are within the urban growth boundary and on land outside that boundary already owned by developers.

Demand for housing is beginning to slow after Ottawa imposed limits on immigration targets; this may buy the city additional time.

Kamrul Ahsan (Kam)

More housing in cities is possible without sacrificing green spaces, sustainable development study finds

How Cities Can Promote Affordable Housing While Limiting Emissions – Sustainability Solutions Group

Suggestion:

• Focus on densification of urban areas that have a lot of unutilized spaces
  • Parking lots are big and waste precious space. It would be better to create above ground/underground parking (similar to the parking areas of the capulet lane buildings in north west London).
  • This in turn would create more space for housing.
• New buildings should be incentivized for using renewable energy to power themselves.
• Making already existing areas more walkable, reducing the use of cars.

Coralia Tudor

I believe that forest and water ways including large ponds should be protected from development. Development projects need to work around these features and add public pathways and access trails where possible without destroying ESA for public enjoyment. I believe that we should not be developing any new housing along the river where the land is untouched and should restore natural land embankments where possible.

I believe in smart developments. My vision is to eliminate sprawling super shopping centers (Wonderland and Southdale) and invision better land use by: creating underground parking, with parks, multi-use water features (fountain, splash pad and skating rink), nice outdoor patios, storefronts that line the park area and apartments or multi story townhouses above (which include 20% affordable/subsidized housing).

I believe that we need to stop giving more agricultural land to developers until what is currently available is filled in with housing (and if possible the shopping centers are converted into the housing vision mentioned above)

We also need to promote developers to fill in the brownfields, abandoned factories, and vacant buildings throughout our city before any new rezoning of agricultural land is permitted.

Council should not simply approve plans and assume implementation will follow. It must ask hard questions, understand the reports before it, and measure whether outcomes are improving.

My approach is straightforward: listen before choosing, explain the decision, report the results honestly, and change course when reality demands it.

Matt Millar

Growth needs to go in the right place. It shouldn’t get crammed onto neighbourhoods and natural areas that never asked for it. I hold new development to the London Plan’s own test: is it sensitive to, compatible with, and a good fit within its surroundings. That test applies to agricultural land and significant natural areas as much as it applies to built-up neighbourhoods. Infrastructure needs to be in place before development begins, for roads and sewers as much as for the natural systems a growing city depends on. Fix capacity first, then build.

Anna Hopkins

The City of London has signed a Housing Agreement to build 47,000 units in the next number of years. If targets are not met annually, we loose infrastructure money which is desperately needed to support improving our roads. We will see most of this new housing in the south/west part of the City. Balanced growth is needed. Supporting our Official Plan (The London Plan) which is about building in and up, will support and protect agricultural lands and long-term environmental sustainability. It is important that when building new homes that we follow environmental buffering policies. It is also important that we balance growth with respecting our neighbourhoods as well as protecting our environment.

Lois Margaret Ward

The growth for London is actually slowing significantly as Federal changes to international students and immigration have reduced by 17,000 the projected growth in just the past year. I will side with intensification and infill for areas already developed and having adequate infrastructure. I will push for all developments to include functional green infrastructure for at-hand space that working families can use without having to travel to a park, to mitigate heat domes, fires, drought and flooding, and for biodiversity protection. I will push to shrink the growth boundary – Council stated in the London Plan that protecting natural areas, agricultural lands, London’s biodiversity was a top priority, but then immediately voted to expand the growth boundary.

Elizabeth Peloza

London’s future growth must remain within the Urban Growth Boundary to protect valuable agricultural land, reduce infrastructure costs, and support a more sustainable and financially responsible city. London needs to continue to meet or exceed its infill targets of 45% of all new residential growth occurring within the Built Area Boundary. The Brownfield Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) provide great financial incentive to development. London has already applied this city-wide to encourage developers to clean up and revitalize historically contaminated or underutilized commercial and industrial sites; this should be promoted whenever possible. In doing so, we can stop urban sprawl, strengthen communities, and increase our tax base.

Andrew Cook

London’s Climate Emergency Action Plan contains more than 200 actions, and the City now publishes progress information through annual reports and a public dashboard. The recent audit concern is therefore important: listing activities is not the same as demonstrating results.

If elected, I would push for each major climate commitment to have:

• a clearly identified responsible department;
• a public timeline and budget;
• a measurable baseline and target;
• regular progress reporting in plain language; and
• an explanation when a target is missed or a strategy changes.

David Ferreira

I do not think housing and environmental protection should be treated as competing needs. London needs significantly more housing, mainly housing people can actually afford, but we also need to think carefully about where and how that housing is built and what kind of city we are leaving for future generations.

I believe London should prioritize building more housing within our existing urban area before continually expanding outward. That includes more multi-unit and missing-middle housing in established neighbourhoods, while making sure development fits appropriately within its surroundings.

In many established neighbourhoods, I generally support moderate forms of intensification with appropriate setbacks, step-backs, landscaping and transitions in height, while directing taller and denser development toward major arterial roads, transit corridors and areas near rapid transit where infrastructure can better support that growth.

This approach also makes financial sense. Urban sprawl requires the City to build, maintain and eventually replace more roads, sewers, transit routes and other infrastructure across a larger area. Making better use of existing neighbourhoods and infrastructure can reduce those long-term costs while also protecting farmland, biodiversity, greenspace and natural areas.

Where London does need to grow outward, that growth needs to be planned carefully. Environmentally Significant Areas, wetlands, woodlands, waterways, floodplains, wildlife corridors and other important parts of our natural heritage system must be protected.

Prime agricultural and food-producing lands are also finite resources that we need to protect. Once these lands are developed, we cannot simply recreate them somewhere else.

I strongly believe existing green space should be protected even when that sometimes limits where housing can be built. Green space is part of what makes housing and neighbourhoods livable. It provides room for recreation, gathering, exercise and connection to nature, while also protecting biodiversity, absorbing stormwater, reducing flooding and extreme heat, improving air quality and supporting climate resilience.

We also need to look at natural systems as a whole. Biodiversity depends on connected habitats. Protecting one woodlot while eliminating surrounding wetlands, streams or wildlife corridors can still gradually undermine the ecosystem we are trying to preserve.

During the Urban Growth Boundary discussions, I supported a recommendation for a broader natural heritage connectivity plan to better account for wildlife corridors and connections between natural areas, but Council did not support it. I think planning decisions need to consider those cumulative impacts and protect connections between important natural areas during the planning stages and not after decisions are made and natural wildlife connections are lost.

During this term, I have consistently supported stronger environmental protections. I have also opposed allowing public environmental lands to be gradually lost through individual exceptions.

New development and infrastructure also need to be designed for the climate we expect in the future, not the conditions we experienced decades ago. I think we need to be willing to criticize and improve some of the infrastructure we currently depend on. In parts of London, stormwater runs off roads, driveways and other hard surfaces into the storm sewer system and ultimately into our creeks and the Thames River, carrying pollutants with it.

I think we should be doing much more to manage that water closer to where it falls, including using more permeable surfaces, rain gardens, bioswales and other forms of low-impact development that allow water to naturally infiltrate and filter through the ground. Better stormwater management, preserving trees and vegetation, protecting natural drainage systems and designing infrastructure to withstand heavier rainfall, flooding, extreme heat and increasingly severe weather should all be priorities as London grows.

London needs to grow, and we need more housing people can afford. But the question should be about prioritization, not opposition. We should make better use of the land and infrastructure within our existing city, accommodate appropriate growth in established neighbourhoods, direct the greatest density to locations that can support it, and protect the natural and agricultural lands that we cannot replace.

Sarah Lehman

London needs to grow, and we absolutely need more housing. Growth should not mean simply expanding outward and consuming more farmland and natural areas. We should prioritize smart growth. Building more homes where we already have infrastructure, transit and services, particularly around major transit corridors and neighbourhood centres. That means supporting more infill, mixed-use development and gentle density, which includes townhomes, mid-rise buildings and apartments. We need to make sure new communities have the transportation, parks, stormwater infrastructure and other services they need. We need to look at the long-term environmental cost of development, not just the immediate financial return. That includes tree canopy, biodiversity, stormwater management, flooding, heat and transportation emissions. My goal would be to build a London where growth and environmental protection aren’t treated as opposing goals. We can build more housing while building a healthier, more sustainable city.

Josh Morgan

London has real momentum on the diversion side, our Green Bin composting program launched the week of January 15, 2024, and we operate four year-round EnviroDepots that already go beyond simple disposal: for example, bikes dropped off are repaired through the Big Bike Giveaway and Squeaky Wheel Bike Co-Op programs and made available to people who need them, rather than landfilled. Our long-standing 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan / Resource Recovery Plan sets the policy framework for pushing diversion further, including examining resource recovery and waste conversion technologies. You’re right that recycling alone isn’t the finish line. My commitment is to keep expanding genuine reuse and repair options, not just more diversion bins, and to make sure the next update of our Resource Recovery Plan comes with real, public targets and timelines, not a plan that quietly sits without a completion date.

Bronagh Morgan

I know of a few social enterprises and businesses that are leaders in this area. Learn from the experts and don’t force administration into an area that is already working. The City does not need to micromanage everything – well thought-out and evenly applied regulation is sufficient.

Dan Lenart

Kitchen Scrap Diversion away from landfill (W12) needs to be Greatly expanded right into the High Rise Apartments/ Condos, with only 1 stream garbage chute typically right now. I know this is easier said than done, but it needs to be discussed, with possible solutions proposed for the sake of our community’s environment. I understand our W12 landfill is nearly full, and a new site will not be permitted by the Ministry of the Environment unless Maximum Diversion is in place – which includes Kitchen Scrap Bio.

Lawrence-Zachary Howe

A municipal government manages local waste diversion; it does not have the jurisdiction or scope to re-engineer global manufacturing or retail supply chains. I support optimizing our current recycling and compost streams to maximize efficiency, rather than expanding the city’s scope into regulating consumer retail and repair habits. However, personally, I do support emphatically right-to-repair.

Hadleigh McAlister

I am pleased that we finally have a green bin program up and running but would like to see usage increase. There are still far too many Londoners not compositing. The city needs to increase its education and access to this program. I was also pleased to see that we have implemented a pilot program for townhouses and would also like to see apartments eventually included. I think the city could also be leaders in a circular economy and encourage and champion businesses that operate more efficiently and sustainably.

Shawn Lewis

The City’s recent “Worn and Torn” donation drive support with Goodwill Industries is a great example of how the city can promote reusing and repurposing old items: https://london.ca/newsroom/we-want-your-worn-or-torn-clothing-textile-items.

Zak Rahim

The first job is promotion. Most Londoners have no idea repair and reuse options already exist here, or that some local social enterprises are already doing this work well. Before the City spends money building new programs, it should be pointing people toward what’s already working and making it easier to find. Where the City can help without taking over is procurement and permitting: buying refurbished and repaired where it can, and clearing away red tape for repair shops and reuse businesses instead of regulating them like they’re a landfill risk. This doesn’t need a big new department; it needs the City to get out of the way of the people already doing it and put its own purchasing power behind it.

Bob Wright

We can support and publicize programs such as London Repair Café.

Mario Jozic

The City should expand composting, textile and construction-material diversion, repair programs, reusable-container initiatives and partnerships with businesses that recover or repurpose materials. Municipal procurement should favour durable, repairable and reusable products where they provide good value.

Randi Prunner

I believe the City of London can support a more circular economy by working closer with the London Anaerobic Digester facility to increase our current composting program. The current composting program has faced pitfalls and lack of participation, specifically from residents in high-rise buildings. Through working with the Digester facility, we could help encourage Londoners to refuse wasteful products at the grocery store in exchange for purchasing more organic materials, knowing the waste from these will be diverted from the landfill and go towards fueling a renewable natural gas resource the City can then use to power the city. This would also possibly require reusing and/or repairing existing natural gas lines that have been part of London’s infrastructure (where possible). The added bonus of supporting an initiative like this would be the production of fertilizer (a byproduct of the digester process), which already is dispersed to local farmland surrounding London; this could also be provided to community gardens to continue to grow organic and feed the cycle.

Mary Blake Rose

Waste Reduction is another area where the City can lead by example. Internal procurement policies requiring city-purchased goods to meet circular economy standards would provide an opportunity to do just this. Supporting organizations that are already circular economy leaders is also key. Reimagine Co. is the first example that comes to mind. I’d also add that while London has made progress in recycling and waste diversion, there’s room for some tightening there. Numerous small businesses and non-profit organizations were affected by the January 2026 changes to the Ontario Blue Box program. A long-term solution for them could contribute to diverting more waste from the landfill.

Corrine Rahman

The City is supporting a circular economy by broadening the understanding of the business community through partnerships with the London Chamber, LEDC and others to embed sustainability into our Economic Development initiatives. In 2025, the City and the Chamber partnered on a series of presentations around sharing information on sustainable business practices.

The City also supports the ongoing repair cafes taking place at London public libraries and elsewhere as a way to move beyond recycling and learn to fix instead of dispose of products.

Samuel Trosow

While progress has been made in this area, there have also been setbacks and there is still much room for improvement. Too much waste is going into the landfill and Council needs to conduct a thorough review of the 3R’s early in the term and adjust policies accordingly. London has promising and innovative programs like Reimagine London’s Repair Café, UWO’s furniture exchange, and the London Public Library’s sewing program. These programs should be better supported and expanded in order to be made more available to the broader public.

Ian Leishman

I am pleased to see Ontario move to a producer-responsibility recycling system. As of January 1, 2026, Circular Materials manages London’s residential Blue Box program on behalf of producers. This means companies that supply packaging and paper products are now responsible for funding and managing their recycling, rather than leaving those costs with municipalities. I believe this also gives producers a greater incentive to reduce unnecessary packaging and use materials that are easier to reuse or recycle.

More broadly, London should continue looking for practical ways to reduce our environmental impact and address climate change. This should include recycling, but also reducing waste through reuse, repair, donation, and reducing unnecessary packaging and single-use products. The goal should be to make it easier and more economical to reuse or repair something than to simply throw it away.

Naomi Nadea

London should move beyond a system that focuses primarily on recycling. I support a stronger hierarchy of refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, repurpose, and recycle. The City can support this through repair programs, community tool libraries, reuse initiatives, composting, waste-reduction education, construction-material reuse, and incentives for businesses that reduce waste. We should also encourage products and procurement practices that prioritize durability, repairability, and long-term use. A sustainable economy should not be based on constantly buying something new and throwing something away.

Djuma Sharifu

I support moving beyond simply recycling more. London should also focus on reducing waste, encouraging reuse, and making repair more accessible.

The City can work with local organizations and businesses to support repair programs, reuse initiatives, donation programs, and other ways of keeping usable materials out of landfills.

I would also support reviewing how the City purchases goods and services, with consideration given to products that are durable, reusable, and repairable where practical.

I believe this is an area where environmental responsibility and economic opportunity can work together by supporting local businesses, community organizations, and innovative solutions.

Sam Hajar

The City of London should include measurable targets for reducing waste generated per person, increasing the reuse of materials and extending the life of the current landfill

The current EnviroDepots located across the City of London could include designated reuse areas where safe and usable items are collected for redistribution rather than disposal.

The City could also provide grants to local charities, and businesses that repair, refurbish, rent or resell products. These programs would reduce waste while creating employment.

Germán Gutiérrez

London’s progress on recycling is important, but recycling alone will not take us to a sustainable future. To move toward refuse, reuse, and repair, I will support:

1. Community‑level reuse and repair infrastructure.

This implies creating a network of “repair hubs” and tool libraries in partnership with TREA, neighbourhood associations, and local businesses. These would be places where residents can fix electronics, bikes, clothing, and small appliances instead of discarding them.

• Offer small grants and reduced commercial property taxes for businesses that provide repair, refill, and reuse services.
• Adopt a procurement policy that favors durability.

This implies an update to City procurement that prioritizes products that are repairable, modular, and low‑waste, avoiding single‑use items wherever alternatives exist. Also important is to introduce local bylaws or incentives that encourage reusable packaging in food service and retail, aligned with provincial and federal regulations. In short: A circular economy is ultimately about changing systems so that “waste” is identified and designed out from the start.

Dan Meinen

I’m a building inspector with the City, currently on unpaid leave to run for Council, so I see the construction side of this every day. Demolition and construction waste is one of the largest streams going into our landfill, and a lot of it is recoverable: lumber, brick, concrete, drywall, fixtures. Every tonne we bury shortens the life of a landfill that would be enormously expensive to replace. That makes waste a cost problem as much as an environmental one.

I’d start where the City has the most control with its own projects. Require diversion plans for construction and demolition waste on City builds, and use procurement standards that favour durable, repairable, and recycled-content materials. From years on building sites, I know diversion is achievable when it’s planned from the start, and nearly impossible when it’s an afterthought.

Beyond construction, make reuse easy for residents: repair cafés, tool lending through libraries, and reuse days at the EnviroDepots. And report the numbers publicly, including tonnage, diversion rates, and cost per tonne, so we know whether programs are actually working, not just moving material around.

Waseem Kazzah

The City should continue expanding waste diversion while also supporting repair, reuse, composting, and local initiatives that reduce waste before it is created. Partnering with businesses, community organizations, and schools can help build a stronger circular economy while reducing costs and extending the life of valuable materials.

Jonathan Sher

London manages its fleet already to reduce the need for new purchases and has reduced the trash allowed while providing green bins. The city should continue to encourage residents to make the most use of greener options

Kamrul Ahsan (Kam)

Research:

Learn about Right to Repair

https://pub-london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=111478 Waste

Suggestion:

• Make green bins mandatory (Some do not participate in recycling compost)
• Pass local right-to-repair laws

• Incentivize businesses to waste less and reuse more.
• Review and expose the flaws of current efforts to make London a circular economy.
• Work with policy analysts and environmental organizations to create sets of laws that will push London towards a circular economy.

Coralia Tudor

As previously mentioned we need more areas to recycle items that are not able to go into regular recycling bins. (Lightbulbs, batteries, oil, paint, etc) We need to make these available at grocery stores, libraries, schools, paint suppliers, car repair centers, fire stations.

We need to support more reusing and gifting of items that can have a second life. More buy nothing websites, more repair workshops, more drop off centers for sporting items, coats and other items that are reusable.

We need to continue to expand our recycling and composting programs.

Matt Millar

London already has real programs working here: weekly Green Bin collection, four year-round EnviroDepots, and Blue Box recycling’s shift to full producer responsibility, completed province-wide at the end of 2025. That shift puts the cost on the companies that make the packaging instead of on municipal budgets, although taxpayers are likely footing the bill one way or the other (either directly through municipal taxes or indirectly via passed-through costs on goods).

London’s landfill, W12A, was expected to hit capacity in 2024. The City won approval to expand it, buying time to 2049, but every tonne of waste that gets reused or repaired instead of landfilled stretches that runway further. Diverting waste is fiscal prudence: landfill capacity is a finite, expensive asset, and W12A’s expansion won’t be the last one taxpayers pay for if the City doesn’t also reduce what goes in.

London doesn’t need any new bureaucracy. Any expansion in this area should come from volunteers, like with the London Repair Café, now hosted at library branches. And the city could lead by example by buying refurbished and repairable goods, and salvaging materials instead of demolishing in its own projects.

Anna Hopkins

I have been so proud to attend events on behalf of the City of London partnering with Goodwill Industries, Ontario Great Lakes to continue with the success of Worn or Torn donation drives, throughout the past couple of years. Initiatives and partnerships with other industries and non-profits will help keep textiles out of our landfills, allowing them to last longer. Also, municipalities need to continue to advocate with the Provincial Government for a province-wide deposit-return system for non-alcoholic beverages.

Lois Margaret Ward

The City recently had a month for citizens to drop off any fabric to Goodwill to be sorted, re-sold, recycled or incinerated. This type of program, and many others, needs to be available regularly instead of just once a year. The City should participate in creating and using a circular economy such as has been developed in Wellington Co.

Elizabeth Peloza

• Continue to promote the events of the London Repair Café of which the city is a funder.
• Joint efforts with Goodwill Industries for waste diversion. The city could reinstitute messaging on their waste collection calendars for item donations to communities.

Andrew Cook

Recycling is important, but the best waste is the waste we never create.

London should make it easier for residents, businesses, charities, and community organizations to reuse, repair, share, and redistribute goods before they enter the waste stream. The City’s CEAP already identifies transforming consumption and waste as part of a circular economy, and London has begun programs involving organics, textile reuse, and waste diversion.

I would support practical measures such as:

• community repair events and tool-sharing programs;
• partnerships with charities and reuse organizations;
• easier donation and textile-recovery options;
• waste-reduction requirements in City procurement and large events;
• support for businesses that repair, refurbish, or resell goods; and
• public reporting that measures disposal avoided, not simply material collected.

The City should help remove friction between citizens who want to reduce waste and the organizations capable of putting usable materials back into circulation.

David Ferreira

I think London needs to continue improving waste diversion, but recycling should not be where the conversation ends. By the time something reaches a recycling bin, we have already used the materials, energy and money required to manufacture, transport and purchase it. A circular economy means trying to prevent waste from being created in the first place and then keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible through reuse, repair, refurbishment and recycling.

I also think we have to be honest about the economic system we are working within. Our current economic structure is largely built around producing more, selling more, consuming more and making more profit. In many cases, it is cheaper, more profitable and easier to throw something away and buy a new one than it is to repair it. Products can be made with shorter lifespans, excessive packaging or materials that are difficult to recover because the environmental cost of that waste is often not reflected in the price we pay for the product.

That is almost the opposite of a circular economy. A circular economy asks us to use fewer resources, make things last longer, repair them when they break, reuse materials and design waste out of the system from the beginning. So in many ways, when municipalities try to move toward a circular economy, we are going against the grain of an economic system that has historically rewarded greater consumption, waste production and, subsequently, profit.

That is one reason I support producer responsibility. I think there is a basic fairness to the idea that the companies putting products and packaging into the marketplace should have responsibility for what happens to those materials at the end of their life, rather than simply passing those costs on to municipal taxpayers. It also changes the economic incentive. If excessive packaging or difficult-to-recycle materials cost a producer more to manage, there is a reason for them to use less material and design products and packaging that are easier to reuse or recycle. We need to start putting some of the environmental cost of waste back into the decisions that create the waste in the first place.

However, I think there are problems with how Ontario's new producer responsibility system was implemented. Small businesses, non-profit organizations, daycares, churches and other places of worship were left outside the residential Blue Box system. London had previously collected recycling from hundreds of these locations along existing residential routes, but that service was removed through the 2026 budget in coordination with the CMO takeover. I have concerns with that decision. If our objective is to keep material out of landfill, it makes little sense that recycling can be collected from someone’s home while the small business, church or community organization next door may have to pay privately for the same service. I think Council should have found a better solution to deal with that gap.

The Green Bin is another good example. I supported introducing the program and it has made a difference. In its first year London collected approximately 14,480 tonnes of organic material and our curbside waste diversion rate increased from about 51% to 60%. But participation has generally been around 60 to 65% during regular monitoring periods. That tells me the program is working, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. We should be looking at why residents are not consistently using it and whether education, convenience, collection practices or other barriers are contributing to that.

I am particularly disappointed with what happened with multi-residential Green Bin service. I supported the multi-residential pilot, but the pilot and planned expansion were ultimately removed from the 2026 budget. Staff estimated that multi-residential buildings generate thousands of tonnes of organic waste every year. I would like to see a practical path developed to bring that service back and make Green Bin service broadly available to residents of high-rise and multi-unit buildings. Someone's ability to divert food waste should not depend on whether they live in a detached home or an apartment, especially when we are also encouraging more people to live in higher-density housing.

There are other areas where London can improve as well. The City itself purchases significant amounts of furniture, equipment, vehicles, construction materials and other goods. We should be looking at durability, repairability, reuse and the full life of what we purchase, not simply the lowest upfront price. Something that costs slightly more but lasts twice as long, can be repaired and has reusable components may ultimately cost taxpayers less while producing far less waste.

Construction and demolition waste is another major opportunity. When City buildings are renovated or demolished, we should be looking at what materials can be salvaged, reused or recycled before they are sent to landfill. We should also continue looking at how those practices can be encouraged more broadly in London’s construction sector.

I would also support stronger partnerships around repair and reuse. That can include repair programs, tool and equipment sharing, furniture and building-material reuse, textile recovery and opportunities at Envirodepots to separate useful materials before they become garbage. London’s recent textile diversion work with Goodwill is a good example of how the City can partner with organizations that already have expertise rather than having government operate everything itself.

Food waste also needs to be looked at before it reaches the Green Bin. If food is still edible, the first goal should be getting it to someone who can use it. We should also be looking further upstream at how food is sold. For example, grocers and producers could offer more individualized or smaller-sized portions so people are not forced to buy more than they need, which can contribute to unnecessary food waste. Programs that recover and redistribute usable food should come before composting, and then the Green Bin should deal with what cannot reasonably be consumed.

A lot of this ultimately comes down to political will. We can adopt waste reduction and circular economy goals, but Council still has to fund them and follow through. Ending the multi-residential Green Bin pilot and ending recycling collection for small businesses, churches and non-profits are examples where I think we moved in the wrong direction.

The most impactful with respect to waste reduction is the waste we never create. Residents have a role in reducing and properly sorting waste, but we cannot put all of the responsibility on the person standing in front of a recycling bin. Much of the waste has already been designed into the product before they ever purchase it. A serious circular economy has to look further upstream at how products are designed, manufactured, packaged, sold, purchased, repaired and reused.

Sarah Lehman

London has done a good job improving recycling and waste diversion, but recycling should be closer to the bottom of the hierarchy, not the first and only solution we turn to. That could include the city supporting more local repair programs, tool libraries, reuse centres, textile recovery, furniture and appliance refurbishment, and businesses that keep products and materials in circulation rather than sending them to landfill.

The City should also use its purchasing power to support a circular economy. For example, by considering durability, repairability, recycled content and the ability to reuse materials when purchasing goods and services. We should also make it easier for residents to participate. If someone has a broken appliance, piece of furniture, clothing or household item, the easiest option shouldn’t automatically be putting it at the curb.

I would support London developing a Circular Economy Framework, and I would support making that framework practical, measurable and focused on creating local economic opportunities as well as reducing waste. A circular economy isn’t just an environmental policy. It can create local jobs, support small businesses and make better use of resources that we’ve already paid for.

Josh Morgan

The wildfire smoke events we’ve seen, like the smoke that blanketed southern Ontario in July 2026, prompting air quality warnings, the closure of outdoor recreation facilities in London, and the cancellation of a night of Rock the Park, are driven by a regional and national wildfire crisis that no single city can solve on its own. Where London does have real control is over our own local contributors and our public-health response: continuing to invest in transit and active transportation so fewer daily trips add to local air pollution, making sure air quality alerts reach residents quickly during smoke events, especially those with lung and heart conditions, and using my role chairing the national Big City Mayors Caucus to keep pushing other governments on wildfire prevention and forest management funding, since that’s where the root cause actually sits. Locally, the Climate Emergency Action Plan and the funding behind it remain the right vehicle for reducing what London itself puts into the air.

Bronagh Morgan

I’m an advocate for improved cycling and pedestrian infrastructure because less cars and more green transportation options is solution #1. This has been a hot button for me since I moved to London in January 2002 and realized how underwhelming sidewalk clearing is in winter. We need to commit to making this a moveable City for people rather than always prioritizing personal motor vehicles in our policy making and budgeting. Going back to the BIG job I mentioned in response 1 and applying that the current state of getting around London: if we had thought about how much extra GHG would be entering our atmosphere because of the many, many traffic jams we’ve created this summer due to the proliferation of construction projects, we would have planned them better. Making decisions in silos within the organization is the problem.

The solution is in the process and the paperwork.

Dan Lenart

As a Bike Rider, Air Pollution is felt more along the big roads.

We need to plant more Trees (Regain Our Forrest City Status) But getting car motorists into buses (BRT) in this have-not city of inequality, will not happen, even as bus ridership remains low. Low income folk cannot afford the fare price as it is, and the reliability of service (50%+ LATE) makes it undependable.

Lawrence-Zachary Howe

The premise of this question is flawed. A municipal government cannot solve regional air pollution caused by wildfires hundreds of kilometres outside its system boundaries. The city’s focus should be proper emergency management- ensuring buildings, especially public buildings, have adequate HVAC filtration so vulnerable residents have safe spaces during an active air quality crisis.

Hadleigh McAlister

I would like to see London continue to grow its tree canopy. We are the forest city after all, and we should be proud and diligent stewards of our natural environment. We do also need to be vigilant and plan accordingly for wildfire conditions. It is important that we respond to poor air quality warnings. We need to ensure that Londoners have accessible public places they can go for clean and cool air.

Shawn Lewis

While we can continue to work toward our tree canopy targets, and we know trees help clean the air, obviously, the city cannot control air movement across the region or the province, we cannot change Ontario Building Code requirements around air filtration/HVAC systems, so respectfully I think that question is outside of any council, London or otherwise to address.

I also think it does a disservice and increases apathy and distrust of governments when elected officials at one level make commitments they either cannot keep and/or do not have direct jurisdiction over as it belongs to another level of government.

Zak Rahim

The issue of air pollution is partially mitigable by building a more walkable Ward 3. We also need to give our bike lanes a proper look; bike lanes that don’t connect anywhere don’t incentivize people to use them. It just continues to allow traffic to pile on, especially when every road feels broken and construction endless. We also need to invest in active transit and transit safety. Too often, parents choose to drive their kids to school as active routes to school may be unsafe due to traffic speed and proximity to the roadway. The Thames Valley Parkway should be plowed as a priority in the winter. We need to stop hearing no to these solutions that will improve our quality of life as Londoners and how we move around this city.

Bob Wright

Meeting or exceeding the canopy targets of 34% set out in the City of London Urban Forestry Strategy before the 2065 target.

Mario Jozic

London needs better air-quality monitoring, rapid public alerts, clean-air spaces in libraries and community centres, and filtration support for vulnerable residents.

Long-term solutions include cleaner transit, energy-efficient buildings, more trees and coordinated wildfire-smoke emergency planning.

Randi Prunner

I see more effective solutions to cleaner air for London coming from improving and promoting cycling, walking, and public transit throughout the city. I also see ways of reducing traffic load equating to reducing emissions, leading to cleaner air solutions. Looking into programs like Poparide (a ride-share program in British Columbia), would help not only reduce emissions and traffic congestion, it could provide an alternative reliable mode of transportation for residents with mobility issues who struggle with Paratransit.

Mary Blake Rose

The Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) submitted a report on this topic (and excessive heat) to the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC), and it can be found in the agenda for the CPSC’s August 10 meeting. Their report is quite informative and well researched, and I look forward to seeing the recommendations that City Staff come back with. I think that some particularly impactful actions would be:

• Providing personal protective equipment (PPE) for all outdoor city workers and/or rescheduling work when air quality is poor.
• Operating cooling centres as clean air centres when air quality is poor.
• Reducing barriers for low-income households to access PPE and air filtration supplies.
• Increasing outreach and public education about smoke events and poor air quality.

Corrine Rahman

Recently, Council passed a motion requesting a report back from City staff on extreme heat and air quality concerns. I will look to this report for information related to best practices in other municipalities, the challenges we are currently facing and recommendations on how to move forward. This Summer, we faced a number of challenging situations with the forest fire smoke and it was clear that we need to strengthen our policies and look at how to best address the health related impacts.

There are compounding issues that require us to consider a wider perspective, and policy approaches for the most vulnerable in our community.

I’d like to see the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, push the Federal and Provincial government to discuss this topic in greater depth as fire prevention and addressing active fires is a broader national issue.

Samuel Trosow

There needs to be an all-out prioritization towards emission reduction, and this will require sustained political will. London’s transportation system has been designed to promote single passenger motor vehicles, and while progress is being made in the mode-shift aspirations of the Mobility Master Plan, these goals remain to be implemented and properly funded.

There have been positive changes to the Yards by-law, but there needs to be more education and encouragement for alternatives to traditional landscape practices including the use of gas-powered equipment and better controlling invasive species.

The problem of air-quality is exacerbated by the recurrence of wildfires, and municipal responses needs more thought and consideration. The city will be reviewing its emergency response plan to address fires, smoke and general air quality, and the next council will have to be willing to take proactive steps in better coordination with the Health unit, London Fire, and municipal code compliance services.

Ian Leishman

Well, that’s a tough one. When poor air quality is caused by massive forest fires elsewhere in Canada, there’s only so much we can control locally. But we can control how prepared we are when that smoke reaches London.

I’d like to see a formal wildfire-smoke response plan with predetermined triggers based on the Air Quality Health Index, rather than having to figure things out as conditions develop. We can build on the indoor spaces already available by designating and expanding a network of clean-air centres. When certain air-quality levels are reached, the plan should also automatically trigger targeted outreach to seniors, people experiencing homelessness and other vulnerable residents.

Beyond that, we should continue making environmentally responsible decisions locally and do a better job of planting, protecting and maintaining our trees. We are the Forest City, and we should continue doing our part here at home.

Naomi Nadea

Recent wildfire smoke events have demonstrated how vulnerable London can be to poor air quality.

I support a comprehensive clean-air strategy that includes:

• Better public air-quality information and alerts.
• Accessible clean-air spaces during severe smoke events.
• Protection for vulnerable residents.
• Increased urban tree canopy and green infrastructure.
• Greater use of public transit, walking, and cycling.
• Reduced transportation emissions.
• Energy efficiency and building improvements.
• Greater adoption of renewable energy.
• Increased solar generation and battery storage.

I particularly support solar power for cooling and warming centres serving people experiencing homelessness, as well as other essential community facilities. These facilities need to remain operational during extreme weather and energy disruptions.

Djuma Sharifu

Clean air is essential to the health and quality of life of London residents. While we cannot control wildfire smoke originating outside our city, we can reduce the pollution that we can control locally.

I would support practical measures that can reduce local emissions, including improving public transit, encouraging cleaner transportation, protecting and expanding green spaces and tree cover, and considering air quality when making infrastructure and development decisions.

I would also support providing residents with timely and accessible information during major wildfire smoke events so they can make informed decisions about protecting themselves.

However, I believe we should identify the most effective solutions through reliable air-quality data and advice from environmental and public-health experts rather than simply adopting policies because they sound environmentally beneficial.

Sam Hajar

A clean-air solution for London would be a city-wide wildfire smoke preparedness and indoor air-quality strategy. With respect to the wildfires the City’s priority should be reducing residents’ exposure when smoke arrives.

As the City of London does when there is extremely cold weather they open up libraries, community centres and other municipal facilities as a worming centre, they should also designate theses spaces as clean-air locations when the City is under a smoke advisory. The City should also establish a program providing free or subsidized portable air cleaners, replacement filters and well-fitting respirators to lower-income households, seniors, people experiencing homelessness and residents with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions.

Germán Gutiérrez

The wildfire smoke events and associated incidents have shown how vulnerable London residents -especially children, elders, and people with heart and lung disease-are to poor air quality. Effective clean‑air solutions must combine local emission reductions with resilience. We must reduce local combustion.

This is accomplished by accelerating the shift away from fossil‑fuel vehicles through better transit, safe cycling networks, and walkable neighbourhoods, and reducing traffic‑related emissions.

I will support building retrofits and electrification (heat pumps, better insulation) to cut emissions from gas furnaces and boilers, promote Green infrastructure and urban forestry and urge the expansion and protection of our tree canopy, especially in lower‑income and historically marginalized neighbourhoods, to reduce heat, capture pollutants, and improve respiratory health.

In parallel I will align with all those stakeholders and authorities who favor restoring wetlands and natural areas that help moderate local climate impacts and support biodiversity.

As a municipality we must develop a clear public wildfire smoke response protocol: real‑time air quality alerts, accessible clean‑air shelters, and targeted outreach to vulnerable residents. To accomplish this we will have to work with health units and community organizations like TREA to distribute information and low‑cost filtration options during severe events.

A clean air policy should be framed as a public health commitment.

Dan Meinen

A city council can’t stop wildfire smoke from Northern Ontario. But it can protect people from it and stop adding to it locally.

Protection first: designate libraries, community centres, and arenas as clean-air spaces with upgraded filtration, and open them on bad air days the same way we open cooling centres in a heat wave. Warn residents clearly when PM2.5 spikes, especially seniors and people with lung or heart conditions. And keep planting trees, because canopy improves air quality year-round. London’s Urban Forest Strategy sets a target of 34% canopy by 2065, and we’re at roughly 27% today. That goal belongs on the same public dashboard I’ve proposed for tracking all of the City’s environmental commitments, so residents can see every year whether the number is actually moving.

Locally, the two things we control are traffic and burning. Better public transit, like the minimum service standard I’ve proposed for Ward 7, takes cars off the roads. And London’s open-air burning rules, which add avoidable smoke at the neighbourhood level, need a review as the city grows and the environmental landscape changes.

Waseem Kazzah

Clean air is essential to public health. I support expanding London’s urban tree canopy, improving public transit and active transportation options, encouraging energy-efficient buildings, and strengthening emergency preparedness during wildfire smoke events.

Protecting air quality requires both local action and collaboration with provincial and federal partners, and the City should follow federal and provincial guidelines in regards to public health.

Jonathan Sher

Wildfires are not in the control of the city, so we are left to better protect residents from its effects and lobby the Ontario government to do better.

Kamrul Ahsan (Kam)

Research:

5 ways cities are cleaning the air we breathe

Suggestion:

• Low emission zones of certain areas
• Increase number of trees and bushes, making commercial and residential areas greener
• Increase walkability of some areas, as well as increase/update bike paths to make biking a viable form of personal transportation.

Coralia Tudor

The best clean air solution at the present time that council can implement is to create relief centers for those who do not have access to air conditioning (this would include the unhoused) to get out of the heat into a space with cool filtered air. Council can implement a by-law that all rental units must have air conditioning units that are in working order to help residents take shelter from the air pollution and heat. Regulations can be put into place to keep those working in the elements to be provided with PPE or stay at home orders.

We can also set limits on air pollution like prohibiting open air burning, odour emitted from factories as well as using zoning to limit the proximity of housing from factories.

As a further aside; We have to acknowledge that while we have no control over wildfires and wind patterns there are local actions that we can take to reduce our chances of local wildfires. To address this climate change matter locally, we can implement by-laws to conserve water by not watering grass and watering trees and plants (this reduces the risk of fires locally) We must add more trees to our cityscape that will continuously improve the air quality, and help reduce the temperature. In extreme droughts, we can request residents to water street trees and fire departments can practice and test equipment in local parks and water the trees at that time as well as dispatching city water trucks to water street trees. We also need to plant more drought tolerant plants.

Matt Millar

Wildfire smoke has hit London hard in recent years, most recently in July 2026, when the AQHI reached Very High Risk, the City suspended open-air burning, and outdoor recreation programs closed until the smoke cleared. That’s the right response. London Council can’t manage forests in Northern Ontario or control smoke carried here on the wind.

What the City can do is make sure Londoners are protected when the smoke arrives: a fast, clear alert with the AQHI forecast, health guidance, and word on which outdoor programs and City operations are pausing. Community centres should open as indoor clean-air spaces too, and the City should publicize them clearly, especially for seniors, children, and people with respiratory conditions. London already did this in July 2026, when centres across the city opened for indoor relief while outdoor pools, sports fields, and recreation programs closed.

The City should also keep its own operations from making a bad-air day worse: suspend discretionary open-air burning and reschedule non-urgent outdoor work. That gives residents timely information and a safe place to go, without adding a new department or an expensive new program to do it.

Anna Hopkins

Given the smoke days that our city has experienced this summer, I was very pleased to support a review of our Emergency Response Plan to review and report back on extreme heat and air quality in our city.

Lois Margaret Ward

Trees and tall grass prairies. Increasing dependability, frequency, safety and coverage across the city of bus service which increases ridership, thus taking many more cars off the roads, thereby making our daily air quality much better.

Elizabeth Peloza

Choosing carpooling, public or active transportation when possible. Planning their errands that require a vehicle into a few as trips as possible. They could consider the purchase of an electric vehicle or e-scooter.

Andrew Cook

Wildfire smoke is largely created outside London’s municipal boundaries, but the City still has a responsibility to protect residents when severe smoke reaches us. In July 2026, London closed outdoor recreation facilities and programs in response to an air-quality warning, demonstrating that these events now directly affect municipal services and public life.

Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is the main health threat from wildfire smoke. Federal public-health guidance recommends good-quality filtration, cleaner-air spaces, clear public warnings, and special protection for residents who are more vulnerable.

I would support:

• a clear municipal smoke-response plan;
• publicly identified cleaner-air spaces during severe events;
• appropriate filtration in City buildings used by vulnerable residents;
• rapid, consistent communication through public-health and emergency channels;
• continued protection and expansion of London’s urban tree canopy; and
• stronger advocacy to the Province and federal government on wildfire prevention, forest management, monitoring, and emergency response.

London cannot prevent every distant wildfire, but we can prepare better, protect vulnerable people, and ensure residents know where to go when the air becomes unsafe.

David Ferreira

This summer presented an example of why this question is so relevant. London experienced several days of very poor air quality from wildfire smoke. We cannot control fires burning hundreds of kilometres away, but we can control how prepared we are and how well we protect people when the smoke arrives.

Councillor Trosow and myself moved a motion at a recent committee directing staff to review London’s response to extreme heat and poor air quality, including best practices from other municipalities, protections for City employees working outdoors, cleaner-air spaces, coordination with the Middlesex-London Health Unit and other partners, and supports for residents who are most vulnerable.

I think London should have clearly identified cleaner-air spaces in libraries, community centres and other public buildings, with HVAC systems and filtration that are actually capable of providing cleaner indoor air during severe smoke events. We should also look at improving access to portable air filtration and N95 or equivalent respirators for lower- income and medically vulnerable residents and people who cannot avoid being outside.

There is an equity issue here as well. Telling people to simply close their windows and stay indoors assumes they have air conditioning, good filtration and a safe indoor environment. Many people do not. This becomes even more serious when extreme heat and wildfire smoke happen at the same time.

I also think wildfire smoke and extreme heat need to be more clearly incorporated into the City’s emergency planning. We have established responses for flooding, severe winter weather and other emergencies. Poor air quality should have the same clear coordination so residents know what resources are available and City departments and community partners know who is responsible for what.

We should continue reducing the pollution we can control locally. Better public transit, active transportation, reducing unnecessary idling, moving City and transit fleets toward lower-emission vehicles, planting and protecting trees, and stronger building standards all contribute to cleaner air.

London cannot prevent wildfire smoke from reaching us, but we can reduce our own contribution to air pollution and make sure residents have cleaner air, reliable information and practical protection when air quality becomes dangerous. That is work I have already pushed forward this term and would continue to strive for in the next.

Sarah Lehman

Wildfire smoke has made clean air a very immediate issue for Londoners. While the City can’t control wildfire smoke coming from Northern Ontario, we can control some of the pollution we create locally, and we can do more to protect residents when air quality deteriorates. My priorities would be to reduce transportation-related emissions by continuing to invest in reliable public transit, walking and cycling infrastructure, and cleaner vehicles. I would also support programs that help residents and businesses improve the energy efficiency of their buildings, because reducing energy consumption can reduce both emissions and household costs. But we also need to focus on adaptation and public health. During significant air-quality events, residents need timely, accessible information about the risks and what they can do to protect themselves. The City should continue to work closely with the Middlesex-London Health Unit and community organizations to make sure vulnerable residents have access to clean indoor air and aren’t left behind.

Josh Morgan

London’s Open Air Burning By-law (F-9) already restricts backyard fires: a 4-metre setback from property lines and structures, no burning during high winds, rain, fog, or smog alerts, and it gives the Fire Chief authority to impose temporary citywide bans during high-risk conditions, which the City used in August 2025 due to hot, dry conditions. I support our current approach but commit to regular review and updating of the By-law based on expert recommendations, staff advice, and public feedback.

Bronagh Morgan

I would be willing to assess the utility of a ban like this in the same way we look at every new piece of legislation/regulation. Cost/benefit with all the factors that are in favour of allowing backyard fires and banning them considered.

Lawrence-Zachary Howe

I do not support an open-air backyard burning ban. While I will concede to open-air backyard burning can be toxic – to me it is a fundamental human experience that we evolved to partake in and as such cannot be outright forbidden. The current restrictions the city has, in my view, are sufficient and reasonable.

Dan Lenart

I understand the concerns around backyard fires, and encampment fires along the River, especially by concerned neighbours with sensitive lung/ breathing or allergy issues. The Fire Department regularly comes to City Council asking for them to be banned. Usually City Council tells them they are TOO POPULAR with residents. Backyard Fire Guidelines in the Fire department flyer may have to be tightened.

Hadleigh McAlister

I would be open to hearing more from the public on this topic and what they would like to see happen with backyard fires. It is not something that has been raised by Ward 1 residents and to date no has come to me advocating for it.

Shawn Lewis

Absolutely not.

Zak Rahim

I wouldn’t commit to a blanket ban without knowing what it would actually cost to enforce and what it would actually fix. A ban that isn’t enforced is the same as no ban, and enforcement means the fire department, bylaw staff time and a complaint system, a real cost taxpayers would be funding for a rule that’s mostly going to get triggered on days it’s least needed and ignored on days it matters most, like during a smoke advisory. I’d rather look at where the actual harm is concentrated, dense neighbourhoods with real air quality and dispute problems versus lower-density areas where backyard fires aren’t creating the same issue, and consider targeted restrictions, especially during smog or wildfire smoke advisories, before jumping to a citywide ban that taxpayers have to pay to enforce whether it’s working or not. If the evidence says a full ban is what actually solves it, I’d support one, but I want to see that case made with real numbers first, not assume it.

Bob Wright

Yes.

Mario Jozic

I would support stronger restrictions, including automatic bans during poor-air-quality events, wildfire smoke, drought and elevated fire risk, together with improved complaint enforcement. Before imposing a permanent citywide ban, I would seek local public-health evidence, public consultation and a review of reasonable exemptions for cooking and Indigenous ceremonial purposes.

Randi Prunner

I don’t support an open-air burning ban in London. I do support finding alternative ways to decrease air pollution. I do support efforts to improve eliminating traffic emissions through promoting cycling, walking, and transit programs. I do support an increased yard waste collection program on designated days to reduce the amount of backyard burning during the day.

Mary Blake Rose

I would support asking City Staff to prepare a report on this. Backyard fires are not my area of expertise, so I’d want to know more about the positive outcomes of a burn ban and any potential negative outcomes, but I would support City Staff looking into it.

Corrine Rahman

I would support a community conversation on this topic and reviewing the bylaw (last updated in 2021). I’d like to hear from the public on this matter. I think there is much confusion as to what is considered an open air burn and education is needed to begin with.

Samuel Trosow

Related to the last question, better cooperation and coordination between city departments and the health unit is needed. The current open-air burning by-laws are ambiguous, difficult to understand and enforce, and too often the cause neighbor disputes. It needs a full review early in the council term to better protect persons from the smoke-related hazards of fires, and all options need to be considered.

Ian Leishman

I don’t think we need a city-wide ban on backyard fires, but I do understand the health concerns, especially for people dealing with cancer, lung or heart conditions. When I was fighting cancer and was neutropenic, I had to be extremely careful, so I can appreciate how seriously smoke can affect someone’s health.

London already regulates backyard fires, including requiring them to be at least four metres from buildings or property lines. As I understand it, fires are also limited to 46 cm wide by 46 cm long by 30 cm high. Rather than banning them altogether, I would be open to hearing from Londoners about the problems they are experiencing and whether reasonable changes are needed, such as increasing the required distance or reducing the permitted fire size.

I think that’s a better balance between addressing the concerns of neighbours and allowing people to continue enjoying backyard fires responsibly.

Naomi Nadea

Yes, I would support a ban on routine residential open-air burning in London, particularly backyard fires that unnecessarily expose neighbouring residents to smoke and fine particulate pollution.

I recognize that some residents enjoy backyard fires. However, that enjoyment must be balanced against the rights of neighbours to breathe clean air, particularly children, seniors, and people who may be especially vulnerable to air pollution.

I would support clearly defined exemptions where genuinely necessary, while avoiding loopholes that undermine the purpose of the policy.

Djuma Sharifu

I take the concerns surrounding backyard fires and neighbourhood air quality seriously. Smoke can affect surrounding residents, particularly those who may be more vulnerable to poor air quality.

At this point, I would not support making a blanket decision without first reviewing the scientific evidence, public-health information, current enforcement data, and the experiences of residents and municipalities that have adopted different approaches.

I would be open to stronger restrictions, including a ban, if qualified environmental and public-health experts demonstrate that this would provide a meaningful improvement in local air quality and that there are no more effective and practical alternatives.

I would also want residents, firefighters, public-health professionals, environmental experts, and other stakeholders to have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

My approach is straightforward: protect our environment, listen to the experts, listen to residents, and make decisions based on evidence and the long-term interests of London.

Sam Hajar

Yes, I would support an open-air burning ban in London. Backyard fires create pollution, and respiratory issues. A ban would improve public health, reduce nuisance complaints, and provide a clearer, more consistent standard across the city. Some exemptions could be considered for ceremonial, emergency, or specifically permitted uses, provided appropriate safety and air-quality controls are in place.

Germán Gutiérrez

Given what we now know about particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less and its links to cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illness, and the added burden from wildfire smoke, continuing to allow backyard fires in dense neighbourhoods is hard to justify.

Yes, I would support an open‑air burning ban in London. It is a question of Health and equity: Backyard fires disproportionately affect neighbours who may have asthma, COPD, or heart conditions, and those who cannot afford to install advanced filtration. Smoke does not respect property lines.

The City of London cannot credibly commit to cleaner air and climate action while permitting routine, discretionary combustion that adds particulate matter and other pollutants to local air.

There are many disputes that arise from smoke drifting into adjacent yards and homes throughout the city. A clear ban, with limited exceptions for cultural or ceremonial uses developed in partnership with Indigenous communities, would reduce conflict and protect the overall health of our community.

Alongside the ban, I would support education campaigns about the impacts of wood smoke on health and the many alternatives for outdoor socializing.

I would also support designated spaces developed with Indigenous partners.

If London is serious about clean air and climate responsibility, phasing out open‑air burning in residential areas is a necessary step.

Dan Meinen

The health evidence on PM2.5 isn’t in doubt. London’s current bylaw dates from 2021, before smoky summers from northern wildfires became a regular reality, and its air quality trigger is an outdated “Smog Alert” standard. Before taking a position on a full ban, I’d ask staff to review the bylaw: what similar cities have done, our complaint and enforcement data since 2021, and the range of options, from tighter rules and automatic bans on poor air quality days to an urban ban with exceptions for certified appliances and permitted agricultural burning. I’ll follow the evidence that review produces. What I won’t support is keeping rules written for a different era and asking bylaw officers to referee the same disputes every summer.

Jonathan Sher

Yes, though it will be difficult to enforce.

Kamrul Ahsan (Kam)

Research:

https://london.ca/living-london/community-services/fire-emergency-services/london-fire-department/open-air-burning

Suggestion:

• Not an outright ban, but an increase in regulation
  • For example, backyard fires must be a lot smaller (mandatory size to be determined in consultation with experts and environmental organizations).
  • Different areas have different time windows for a backyard fire.
• If regulations do not work after a certain period of time, than a ban should be considered and discussed.

Waseem Kazzah

I recognize the health concerns associated with smoke, particularly for seniors, children, and residents with respiratory conditions. Before supporting a complete ban, I would

want to review local evidence, public consultation, and the effectiveness of existing bylaws. I support stronger enforcement against nuisance burning and measures that reduce unnecessary smoke while balancing residents’ reasonable use of their property.

Coralia Tudor

I would suggest more severe restrictions than a full ban, so that families and friends can enjoy outdoor time together.

• Only permitted on long weekends from May-Oct between 4pm -10pm (provided that we don’t have extreme drought conditions, or poor air index).
• A ban on burning of leaves, treated lumber, or other materials
• No use of accelerants
• I would encourage people to move to propane or natural gas fire tables/pits.

Matt Millar

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. 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.

Anna Hopkins

We have policies in place when it comes to open-air burning and they must be followed. Representing the rural community in Ward 9, I would like to have a better understanding of what a ban would look like when it comes to farms and agricultural lands in our City.

Lois Margaret Ward

Considering the hazards of open fires during droughts and terrible air quality events there should be no open fires allowed at these times.

Elizabeth Peloza

Only when the London Fire Chief implements one.

Andrew Cook

I would not support a blanket ban on recreational backyard fires.

Properly contained and responsibly used backyard fires are a legitimate form of recreation for many London families, including mine. I support the current approach of limiting fire size, requiring appropriate setbacks and supervision, and restricting what may be burned. Yard waste, garbage, and other unsuitable materials should not be burned in residential neighbourhoods.

I also support temporary fire bans during hot, dry, or otherwise unsafe conditions, along with meaningful enforcement where smoke creates an ongoing nuisance or health risk for neighbouring residents.

The right balance is not prohibition. It is responsible use, clear rules, and consideration for the people living nearby.

David Ferreira

At this point, I would be open to supporting an open-air burning ban or stronger restrictions, but I would want more information before committing to a complete city-wide ban.

I recognize the health concern for burning wood as it produces PM2.5 and other pollutants, and exposure to fine particulate matter is associated with respiratory and cardiovascular impacts and increased risk of lung cancer. It also does not stay within the property where the fire is burning. Smoke can affect neighbours who may have asthma, heart conditions or other health concerns.

At the same time, backyard fires are something many Londoners enjoy, and before deciding on a prohibition or restriction I would want to understand the actual scope of the issue in London. How many households regularly have backyard fires? How many complaints and Fire Department responses do they generate? What proportion of local PM2.5 comes from recreational wood burning, and what reduction could realistically be expected from a ban? Are there particular parts of the city where the impacts are greater because homes and yards are closer together?

I would also want to look at options between our current rules and a complete city-wide ban. Toronto generally prohibits open-air burning, while Hamilton prohibits it in its urban area but allows permitted burning in rural areas. I would also want to consider whether restrictions during periods of poor air quality or wildfire smoke, or stronger restrictions in denser parts of London, could achieve much of the public-health benefit without necessarily requiring the same approach everywhere.

I would also want to understand how any new rules would actually be enforced. There is little value in passing a prohibition if there is no practical way to enforce it consistently.

Also, some Londoners experiencing homelessness use fires for warmth because they are living outside. My goal is to have people housed and indoors, but that is not the reality for everyone today. Any change needs to consider how it would affect those individuals, what safe alternatives for warmth are available and how enforcement would work in those circumstances. A fire being used by someone outside to survive freezing conditions raises very different considerations than a recreational backyard bonfire.

I recently supported further City work on our response to fine particulate matter, wildfire smoke and extreme heat because I think air quality needs greater attention from the City. I would support doing the same due diligence here.

There is clearly a potential public-health, neighbourhood quality-of-life and fire-safety benefit from reducing unnecessary wood smoke. I would want the evidence in front of Council first so we understand how significant the problem is, what environmental and health improvement a change would actually produce, where restrictions would be most effective, and whether they can be implemented and enforced fairly.

Sarah Lehman

I would support stronger enforcement of London’s existing open-air burning rules, along with clear education for residents about when and how fires can safely be used. Where a backyard fire is creating excessive smoke or repeatedly affecting neighbouring properties, residents should have a clear and accessible way to report the problem, and the City should have the tools to respond appropriately. There should also be clear consequences for people who repeatedly disregard the rules. I would also support looking at whether the City’s current rules adequately address smoke, fire safety, air-quality alerts and nuisance, and whether targeted changes are needed rather than an outright ban.