Midtown at a crossroads
Where do the Mayoral candidates stand?
To help residents and taxpayers understand where each Mayoral candidate stands on key Midtown issues, and to reduce the burden on candidates of responding to similar questions from multiple individuals, We Love Oakville (WLO) asked each candidate to provide written responses to three key questions:
1. What did you learn?
What are the most important lessons you personally learned from the total OakvilleTOC experience? How will those lessons shape your approach to working with the Province, Council and residents on future provincial housing or development priorities in Oakville, including any future TOC?
2. What did you do?
What specific actions did you personally take during the TOC process to influence, support, modify or oppose the TOC project or advocate for OPA 70? What, if anything, would you do differently today?
3. What will you do if elected Mayor?
Will you support We Love Oakville’s position that the Province should immediately: 1) revoke the four MZOs enabling the current TOC; 2) approve OPA 70; and 3) work with Oakville to create a coherent, coordinated and liveable Midtown community.
If you support this position, please specify what actions you will take to make this happen. If you do not support this position, please explain what alternative approach you would pursue.
In addition:
-
Would you support a refined TOC if building heights were reduced to 38 storeys, regardless of the resulting density?
-
If additional land were required to redesign the TOC to meet a 38 storey height limit, would you support using Town owned land to accommodate holding the number of housing units constant?
-
When faced with serious provincial overreach, such as the TOC, would you advocate for the Town to aggressively push back, or simply do our best and work within whatever process the Province establishes?
The candidate responses have been grouped by question so that residents and taxpayers can compare the candidates’ positions and better understand their priorities and thinking for Midtown’s future.
Candidate answers have been posted as received, with only formatting and salutations standardized. Some candidates did provide introductory and concluding comments. A full view of each candidate’s exact response is available here.
WLO hopes this initiative will help make the democratic process more informed, efficient and effective for both candidates and Oakville citizens.
Jump to a Question
Click on a question to jump directly to the responses:
3. What Will You Do if Elected Mayor?
Other Questions
What Did You Learn?
What are the most important lessons you personally learned from the total OakvilleTOC experience? How will those lessons shape your approach to working with the Province, Council and residents on future provincial housing or development priorities in Oakville, including any future TOC?
Rob Burton
Response pending.
Arvind Choudhary
Closed doors do not protect a negotiation. They protect the negotiators.
Every bad outcome in this file traces to one root: the public was removed from the room before the decision was made, then invited back afterward to engage with something that could no longer be changed. That was not consultation. It was a formality with a sign in sheet. Your word for it a sham is the accurate one.
Four more lessons, plainly:
Density is the decision. Height is the decoration. Infrastructure is the whole ball game. A council that argues about storeys while the unit count stays fixed is not negotiating it is redecorating. And a council that argues about either one without a road, school, water and emergency services plan attached is not planning at all.
Confidentiality is a tool, and tools get abused. The Municipal Act allows closed sessions for narrow reasons personnel, litigation, land acquisition. "This will be unpopular" is not one of them. A confidentiality agreement that gags a town about its own downtown is not a legal necessity. It is a negotiating posture, and Oakville accepted it.
Nobody checked the developer. The Star had to do what an approvals process is supposed to do, ask whether this partner has the experience, the capital and the track record to build what was promised. A town that signs first and reads the newspaper afterward is not governing.
"The Province made us" is a confession, not a defence. If a Council genuinely believes it has been overrun, its duty is to say so loudly, in public, at the time not to co sign quietly and express regret later.
How this shapes my approach as Mayor. This is already written into The People's Platform, and it was written before this questionnaire arrived:
No policy made behind closed doors (commitment #7). The narrow exceptions the law itself sets out stay narrow. Everything else happens in public, on the record, in front of the people it affects.
The Midtown closed door records declassified within 30 days (commitment #8).
A public lobbyist registry (commitment #10). Anyone lobbying the Mayor, Council or senior staff registers, and who met whom, about what, gets published. Toronto and Ottawa already do this. On a file like Midtown, it is the difference between a public process and a private one.
And a new rule I will apply from day one: this town does not sign a confidentiality agreement that prevents residents from knowing what is being proposed for their own neighbourhood. If that is the price of admission to a negotiation, we say so publicly and let the Province explain why the price is secrecy.
Julia Hanna
The most important lesson for me is that public confidence depends on residents being able to understand and influence decisions before those decisions are effectively settled.
Consultation must explain what can change, provide the information needed to assess a proposal, and show how concerns have been addressed. Confidentiality should be narrowly justified, with planning assumptions, infrastructure requirements and proposed public commitments available for scrutiny.
I also take a clear planning lesson from this experience: height, density, infrastructure and liveability must be considered together. A development beside a GO station still needs functioning local transit, safe streets, parks, schools, servicing and community facilities. Those requirements must be matched with funding and a realistic delivery schedule.
These lessons would shape my approach from the beginning of any future provincial initiative. I would work with Council to establish Oakville’s position early, make our planning requirements public, and involve residents while meaningful choices remain open. I would bring the Province a constructive proposal supported by evidence, identify unresolved disagreements clearly, and report publicly on progress.
Lastly, I've always believed that to be able to effectively advocate and protect your community, you need to be non-partisan. A partisan relationship can only hinder your ability to strongly stand up for our town.
Oakville needs more housing. We also need a credible plan for the community that will surround those homes.
Jeff Knoll
The biggest lesson for me is that having the better planning argument is not enough.
OPA 70 was developed after years of professional planning, Council consideration and public consultation. It accommodates substantial growth and provides a framework for parks, transportation, community amenities and the infrastructure needed to build an actual community.
Despite that, the Province proceeded with its own TOC process and ultimately imposed four MZOs.
I think we put too much faith in the idea that if we continued working through the process, eventually the strength of Oakville’s position would carry the day. It did not.
That does not mean we should stop working with the Province. We have to work with Queen’s Park. But working with the Province does not mean simply accepting the process or the outcome they give us.
Another major lesson for me is transparency.
There was far too much secrecy surrounding this process. Residents did not know enough about what was happening, Council did not always have the degree of involvement I now believe it should have had, and too much was concentrated in a very small group.
For an issue that could fundamentally change Oakville for generations, that is not good enough.
Residents need to know what is being proposed, what the Town supports, what remains unresolved and what the Town is doing about it. Public consultation also has to happen early enough that it can actually influence the outcome.
I also think we have learned that height alone cannot be the measure of whether a proposal is acceptable.
Reducing a building from one height to another does not necessarily solve the problem if essentially the same density is simply moved somewhere else.
We have to look at the entire proposal, including density, infrastructure, transportation, parks, schools, community amenities, built form and how all of Midtown works together.
The question I would keep asking is simple: are we building a complete community that is going to work for the people who live there and for the rest of Oakville?
A housing number by itself does not answer that question.
Sean O'Meara
The most important lesson I learned from the TOC process is that decisions of this magnitude should never be made behind closed doors.
We are talking about a generational decision that will fundamentally reshape Midtown Oakville. Thousands of new homes, major infrastructure requirements, parks, roads, schools, transit and community services are all affected. Residents deserve to see the information, hear the debate and know where their elected representatives stand.
I strongly disagreed with the closed-door process then, and I disagree with it even more strongly today.
There are legitimate reasons for Council to meet in closed session — litigation, legal advice, personnel matters and certain negotiations. But secrecy should never become a substitute for public debate on the fundamental planning decisions that will shape Oakville for generations.
On March 23, I voted against the confidential direction concerning the TOC. I stood with our Ward 3 Councillors, Dave Gittings and Janet Haslett-Theall, whose residents are directly affected by this project. We also pushed to have the vote itself taken publicly so residents could at least know where their representatives stood.
That experience will shape how I lead as Mayor. When the Province brings a proposal of this magnitude to Oakville, my starting point will be simple: Oakville residents deserve a seat at the table, Council deserves the information necessary to make an informed decision, and whenever legally possible, the debate and decisions should take place in public. My experience working at Queens Park will be an asset in my discussions with the Province.
Transparency is not an inconvenience to good government. It is fundamental to good government.
What Did You Do?
What specific actions did you personally take during the TOC process to influence, support, modify or oppose the TOC project or advocate for OPA 70? What, if anything, would you do differently today?
Rob Burton
Response pending.
Arvind Choudhary
Let me be straight with you, because you will get some creative answers to this question from people who were actually in the room.
I did not sit at that Council table. I have no vote to defend and no closed session to explain. What I have is a public position I took and have not moved off once:
Hit pause on Midtown which is commitment #2 in People’s platform. Freeze high density occupancy permits in Midtown so the town can honestly evaluate what this does to traffic, schools and infrastructure before more units are approved. A pause is not a stop. It is what a responsible owner does before signing off on more of the same.
Declassify the closed door Midtown records within 30 days commitment #8. Published in writing, before a single vote was cast in this election.
Keep Oakville's small town feel: no to shoebox towers commitment #1. Density where the town has planned and built for it, not towers dropped onto established streets.
What we are stopping in Midtown, we prevent in Palermo commitment #3. The same growth area machinery is being warmed up for northwest Oakville, and it will be run in the open or not at all.
I have said the same thing at all candidates debates, at doors, and in print: the deals behind closed doors end.
What would I do differently? One thing, and I own it. I should have been louder and earlier in front of that Council table, in person, while the file was still moving instead of assuming that fourteen elected people would do the obvious right thing. I believed the process would embarrass them into openness. It did not. I will not make that assumption about anyone again.
Julia Hanna
My public advocacy includes a statement on Midtown development published on September 2, 2026. I have also made infrastructure before growth a central campaign commitment, calling for a real plan for roads, transit, parks, schools, stormwater and community services. These positions are available through my Midtown statement and published campaign priorities
My opposition to the proposed scale of development in Midtown dates back to the 2022 municipal election.
During the 2022 Bronte mayoral debate, I used both my opening and closing statements to oppose 59-storey towers in Midtown. In my closing statement, at approximately 20:39, I said:
“I promise you, I will say no to 59-story skyscrapers. We will tackle our housing crisis by building mid-level density buildings.”
I put a clear alternative before voters: address Oakville’s housing needs through development at a more appropriate scale. I also challenged the Town’s handling of Midtown planning and the suggestion that responsibility could simply be placed on the Province. Municipal leadership must take responsibility for the decisions it makes and the opportunities it misses.
In that same debate, I called for engagement, consensus-building and accountability. Those principles remain central to my position today. Residents should help shape the future of their community, and planning decisions should be supported by clear evidence and the infrastructure needed to make them work.
I have continued to make Midtown a public campaign issue, including through my September 2026 statement on Midtown development and my published commitment to infrastructure before growth.
The current TOC proposal raises concerns that build on the issues I identified publicly in 2022. Reducing tower heights alone does not answer the questions about density, infrastructure, public space and the quality of the community being created.
What would I do differently today? I would strengthen the follow-through: set out specific written requests to the Province, seek clear responses and timelines, and maintain a public record of unresolved concerns. Residents should be able to see how advocacy translates into decisions and commitments.
Jeff Knoll
On January 27, 2025, I joined Council in unanimously opposing the Province’s proposed TOC plan.
On February 18, 2025, I joined Council in adopting OPA 70.
I supported both decisions because I believe it is not enough simply to say no to something. Oakville also has to put forward a credible alternative for accommodating growth, and that is what OPA 70 does.
These were Council decisions. I do not claim personal credit for them. A tremendous amount of work has been done by Town staff, my Ward 3 colleagues, We Love Oakville, residents’ associations and individual residents.
More recently, I decided that we needed to become much more direct.
On September 16, I wrote to Premier Ford and asked the Province to begin the process of revoking the four MZOs and approve OPA 70.
I have also launched a public petition asking Queen’s Park to do the same.
I have made it clear that simply reducing the proposed towers to 38 storeys does not resolve the underlying issue if the overall density remains essentially unchanged.
I also recognize the frustration around the confidential portions of this process. There are things I am legally prohibited from discussing and I will honour those obligations. But I also believe we should be releasing as much information as we lawfully can.
What would I do differently?
Quite a bit.
I would have pushed harder and sooner for greater Council involvement, more public disclosure and a coordinated political strategy.
I would also not accept by default what has become too common at Town Hall, where the Mayor and senior staff are the people in the room on issues of this magnitude and the rest of Council is not fully involved as events unfold.
There was too much secrecy in this process and, candidly, too much blind faith in it on my part and on the part of others.
I should have pushed harder earlier.
Issues of this scope and scale need to be handled as a team effort. Council needs full information at every step. If something genuinely has to remain confidential, then Council should still receive everything it is legally entitled to receive.
The public should also get as much information as legally possible, as early as possible.
This experience became one of the reasons I remained in the race for Mayor.
I originally decided to run after Rob told me on October 27, 2025 that he intended to retire and asked me to run.
When it became clear that he was reconsidering that decision, I decided to stay in the race.
Part of the reason was my growing concern with this style of management and particularly with how an issue as important to Oakville’s future as Midtown had been handled.
For me, this is bigger than Rob or any one person. It is about how the Mayor’s office should operate.
As Mayor, I would involve Council much more directly. I would expect full disclosure to Council throughout the process, maximum lawful disclosure to the public and a coordinated strategy involving Council, staff and the community.
No Mayor and no small group at Town Hall should be expected to carry an issue this important on their own.
Sean O'Meara
My position throughout the TOC process was that Oakville should determine how we accommodate growth through sound planning, public consultation and the planning framework we spent years developing.
I supported OPA 70 and the work undertaken by our professional planning staff, residents and Council to create a comprehensive plan for Midtown.
When the TOC came before Council on March 23, I opposed the confidential direction. I was one of six members of Council who voted against it, including both Ward 3 Councillors. I also supported efforts to ensure that the final vote was recorded publicly. Following the Province's issuance of the four MZOs, I again voted with the Ward 3 Councillors against the direction that staff not proceed with an application for judicial review. While the legal options available to the Town may have been limited, I believed Oakville needed to use every reasonable avenue available to defend its planning interests and challenge provincial overreach.
I cannot disclose what was discussed in closed session, nor will I breach my legal obligations. But residents can see my votes. I know where I stood, and I stood with the Ward 3 Councillors and the residents most directly affected.
What would I do differently? I would push even harder, and earlier, for transparency.
Council should not allow itself to be placed in a position where a generational planning decision is effectively negotiated behind closed doors and residents are left trying to determine what happened after the fact.
The successful planning process for 420 South Service Road demonstrates that growth and public participation are not mutually exclusive. We can accommodate thousands of new homes around transit while still having public meetings, professional planning review, community input and an accountable Council decision.
That should be the model.
What Will You Do if Elected Mayor?
Will you support We Love Oakville’s position that the Province should immediately:
-
revoke the four MZOs enabling the current TOC;
-
approve OPA 70; and
-
work with Oakville to create a coherent, coordinated and liveable Midtown community.
If you support this position, please specify what actions you will take to make this happen. If you do not support this position, please explain what alternative approach you would pursue.
Rob Burton
Response pending.
Arvind Choudhary
Yes. I support WLO's position without qualification. Revoke the four MZOs. Approve OPA 70. Work with Oakville to build a Midtown people can actually live in.
OPA 70 has sat on Minister Flack's desk since February 2025. Oakville did the work. Oakville built a real framework, in public, and it has been ignored while an 11 tower proposal negotiated in secret cleared in a fraction of the time. That comparison should end this debate on its own.
And 420 South Service Road proves the thing we keep being told is impossible: you can deliver high density, transit oriented housing through an open planning process, with community input, in a built form that fits. It got approved. The sky did not fall. The only thing the open process cost anyone was the ability to avoid scrutiny.
Specific actions, starting week one:
A Council resolution in open session, recorded vote, calling on the Province to revoke all four MZOs and approve OPA 70. Every member of Council on the record, by name, where residents can read it. No more 8 – 6 votes that residents learn about afterward.
Declassify and release the Midtown closed door records within 30 days, to the fullest extent the law allows and where it does not allow it, say publicly what is being withheld and who is withholding it.
Request a full provincial review of the TOC due diligence the developer's experience, financial capacity and ability to deliver and make Oakville's own file public. If a newspaper can find it, the Province can review it.
Go to Queen's Park in person, as Mayor, on the record, with our planners, our numbers and our residents and take the same case to the federal side on the navigation height constraint, which is a matter of public safety regulation, not municipal preference.
Build the coalition. WLO and the ratepayer associations, neighbouring municipalities facing the same MZO playbook, our MPPs, and the school boards because commitment #17 of my platform is replacing portables with real schools, and nobody has yet explained where the children from 6,800 units are supposed to sit.
Legal review of every avenue open to the Town, reported in public including the options I am told are weak.
Now your three specific questions, answered directly, with no hedging.
Julia Hanna
Yes. I support asking the Province to revoke the four MZOs enabling the current TOC, approve OPA 70 as adopted by Council, and work with Oakville to deliver a coherent, coordinated and liveable Midtown.
OPA 70 provides a municipal framework addressing development, building heights, density and community planning. The Province’s registry continues to show it awaiting a decision.
Revocation and provincial approval require provincial action. As Mayor, I would pursue those decisions through the following steps:
Bring forward a Council motion within my first 30 days seeking revocation of the four MZOs and approval of OPA 70, supported by the Town’s planning and infrastructure evidence.
Request meetings with the Ministers of Infrastructure and Municipal Affairs and Housing, involving Oakville’s MPPs and appropriate Town representatives. I would seek a written response and a clear timetable for resolving the outstanding issues.
Seek an open process for any replacement proposal, including a published comparison with OPA 70, updated technical studies, meaningful resident participation and written responses to significant concerns.
Pursue a funded infrastructure and phasing agreement identifying what must be delivered, who pays, who is responsible and when each component must be available. This work must involve the Town, Halton Region, the Province, Metrolinx and other relevant service providers.
Seek disclosure of the project’s delivery safeguards, including the assessment of the development partner’s capacity, financing responsibilities and protections against costs being transferred to taxpayers. Residents deserve evidence that commitments can be delivered.
Publish progress and unresolved issues, so residents can assess what has been requested, what the Province has agreed to and where further action is required.
Limit in-camera meetings to ensure residents know what's being said around the table.
Jeff Knoll
Yes. I support We Love Oakville’s position.
I support revoking the four MZOs, approving OPA 70 and working with Oakville to create a coherent, coordinated and liveable Midtown.
If elected Mayor, one of my first steps would be to bring the issue back to Council and seek a clear mandate for a coordinated advocacy strategy.
I would then seek a meeting with the Premier and the appropriate ministers. I would want our Ward 3 councillors involved and I would ask our local MPPs to actively advocate for Oakville’s position.
But I do not think meetings at Queen’s Park are enough.
We need a town wide effort, backed with resources, political leadership and sustained advocacy from the Mayor and Council.
Oakville has done this before.
We successfully fought the proposed gas power plant. We also fought the proposed redevelopment of Glen Abbey Golf Club.
Those were very different issues, but they had something important in common. They required a coordinated effort involving Council, residents, community organizations, professional staff, political advocacy and, where necessary, legal action.
Neither happened because one person wrote a letter or attended a meeting.
They succeeded because Oakville organized and kept pushing.
There are also precedents for the Province changing course on MZOs. The Lower Duffins Creek situation in Pickering showed that a provincial zoning decision could be revisited, and in 2024 the Province revoked an MZO in Oro Medonte.
The circumstances are different, but the point is important. An MZO is not untouchable simply because it has been issued.
That is why my letter to the Premier and the petition I have launched are not intended to be the end of the effort. They are the beginning.
I would work with We Love Oakville, residents’ associations, Council members, our local representatives and others across Oakville to build a sustained campaign.
I would also want a clear implementation plan based on OPA 70 so we are not simply saying what we oppose. We need to demonstrate what Oakville supports and how it can work.
That means addressing infrastructure, transportation, phasing, parks, schools, community amenities, funding and responsibilities.
I would also seek legal advice on any viable options available to the Town. I would not promise litigation simply for political effect, but I would not take legal options off the table either.
Sean O'Meara
I support calling on the Province to revoke the four MZOs, approve OPA 70 and work openly with the Town of Oakville on a coherent, coordinated and liveable plan for Midtown.
The circumstances have changed, and there is no reason to stubbornly defend a process simply because significant time has already been invested in it.
As Mayor, I would formally ask the Province to reopen the TOC decision. I would seek a meeting with the Premier, the Minister of Infrastructure and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and make Oakville's position clear: approve OPA 70 and work with us rather than around us. I would work with our two elected MPPs who are members of the government, and call on them to be vocal advocates for revoking the MZOs.
I would also seek a clear Council mandate supporting that position and make that mandate public.
I would push back on the Ontario growth targets, which are out of date. In discussion with developers, they are not seeing a market for the shoebox condos the province is pushing Oakville to build. We need to push back to have Ontario update its best planning estimates, and ensure that what is being proposed actually reflects the needs of the community.
Oakville is not refusing growth. OPA 70 plans for significant growth around one of the busiest transit hubs in the region. The issue is whether that growth creates a complete community — with appropriate infrastructure, parks, transportation, community services and a built form that residents can live with — or whether thousands of units are simply imposed on a map.
38 Story Height Limit
Would you support a refined TOC if building heights were reduced to 38 storeys, regardless of the resulting density?
Rob Burton
Response pending.
Arvind Choudhary
No.
Thirty eight storeys with the same 6,800 units is not a concession. It is the same project wearing a shorter hat.
The height is coming down because of a federal navigation constraint, not because anyone in this process listened to Oakville. And nothing about that change answers a single one of the infrastructure questions above. The same fourteen thousand people arrive on the same roads. The same children need the same schools that do not exist. The same water and stormwater system takes the same load. The same fire and paramedic services cover the same footprint. A shorter building does not build a school.
Density is what lands on our infrastructure. It does not become liveable because the silhouette changed. I will not trade a real reduction in density for a cosmetic reduction in height, and I will not stand beside anyone who tries to sell residents that trade as a victory.
What would change my answer is not a number of storeys. It is a funded, published, binding infrastructure plan roads, schools, water, stormwater, transit capacity and emergency response delivered ahead of occupancy, not promised after it. No one has produced one. Until someone does, the answer to any version of this project is no.
Julia Hanna
No. A 38-storey height limit would not, by itself, make the proposal acceptable.
I would assess any revised proposal against OPA 70, its overall density and building mass, infrastructure capacity, public space, housing mix and effects on surrounding neighbourhoods. The proposed number of homes must be justified by that assessment. Maintaining a predetermined unit count should not override the requirements for a functioning community.
Any claimed aviation-related height constraint should also be documented publicly, rather than left to speculation.
Jeff Knoll
No.
Thirty eight storeys is not a magic number.
If the same number of units is simply redistributed onto shorter buildings or additional land, we may still have essentially the same density and many of the same problems.
I would judge any proposal on the whole plan, including density, infrastructure, transportation, built form, public amenities and whether it fits within a properly planned Midtown.
Sean O'Meara
No. Height alone is not the test.
Reducing a tower from one height to another while maintaining the same number of units does not necessarily solve the underlying planning issues. Density, building massing, separation, public realm, transportation capacity, parks, schools, community facilities, servicing and infrastructure all have to be considered together.
I will not judge a development of this magnitude by one number.
Use of Town-owned Land
If additional land were required to redesign the TOC to meet a 38 storey height limit, would you support using Town owned land to accommodate holding the number of housing units constant?
Rob Burton
Response pending.
Arvind Choudhary
Absolutely not. Not one square metre.
Town owned land belongs to the residents of Oakville. Handing it over to rescue a project our own planners flagged, our residents rejected, and our Council approved behind a closed door would be the single worst decision a Mayor could make on this file. It would reward the closed door process by paying for its consequences with public assets. And it would make a bad project permanent once that land is gone, it is gone, and every future council inherits the result. The answer is no, and it stays no.
Julia Hanna
No. I would not support using Town-owned land for the purpose of preserving the current TOC’s unit count in a lower-height redesign.
Town land is a public asset. Its use should advance clearly demonstrated community priorities. Any proposal involving that land must disclose its value, the alternatives, the public benefit and the financial implications, with public consultation and a Council decision.
The development’s scale should respond to sound planning and available capacity.
Jeff Knoll
Not simply for that purpose.
I would not make Town owned land available just to preserve a predetermined unit count that no longer fits once the buildings are redesigned.
The number of units should follow from good planning, infrastructure capacity and the needs of the community.
That does not mean Town land could never play a role in Midtown. It may.
But there would have to be a clear public benefit, a transparent process and Council approval. Simply preserving the existing TOC unit count would not be enough.
Sean O'Meara
I would not commit Town-owned land simply to preserve a predetermined provincial unit count.
Town land belongs to Oakville residents. Decisions about it must be made transparently and based on the long-term interests of the community. If public land is ever considered as part of a Midtown solution, Council and the public should know what land is involved, what Oakville receives in return and how the proposal advances our planning objectives.
I will not treat publicly owned land as a mechanism for making the mathematics of a provincially imposed development work.
Provincial Overreach
When faced with serious provincial overreach, such as the TOC, would you advocate for the Town to aggressively push back, or simply do our best and work within whatever process the Province establishes?
Rob Burton
Response pending.
Arvind Choudhary
Push back. Aggressively, publicly, and on the record.
"Doing our best within the process" is precisely how we got here. When a council quietly works inside a process built to exclude residents, it does not moderate the outcome it legitimizes it. It puts an Oakville signature on a document Oakville never agreed with.
That is not a call for theatre. It means, state our position publicly before we negotiate, never sign a gag order about our own town, use every legal and political tool available, bring residents with us instead of reporting back to them afterward, and when we are overruled, say so loudly and name who did it. Cooperation is something you offer a partner. It is not something you owe someone who took the decision away from you.
Julia Hanna
Yes. I would firmly challenge provincial decisions that undermine sound planning, meaningful public participation or Oakville’s long-term interests.
That would include formal Council resolutions, direct ministerial advocacy, public reporting and cooperation with other affected municipalities. Where warranted, I would seek legal advice on available remedies and ask Council to authorize action where the legal merits and public interest justify it.
I would continue working with the Province throughout that process, while maintaining a clear public position on the changes Oakville requires. Residents should be able to judge that work by the decisions, commitments and protections it secures.
Jeff Knoll
Yes.
Aggressively, publicly, and strategically.
And I have already started through my public letter to the Premier and the petition asking Queen’s Park to withdraw the MZOs and approve OPA 70.
I also come to this without obligations to Queen’s Park. I have no commitments that prevent me from speaking openly when I believe the Province is getting something wrong.
My responsibility as Mayor would be to Oakville.
That does not mean picking fights with the Province for the sake of it. We need a productive relationship with Queen’s Park and I would work hard to maintain one.
But cooperation cannot mean acquiescence.
When the Province gets something wrong for Oakville, the Mayor should say so and should be prepared to organize the Town to do something about it.
We have done that before and we can do it again.
I cannot promise that any Mayor can simply order the Province to revoke these MZOs. That would not be credible.
What I can promise is that I would use the office of Mayor to lead a serious, properly resourced, town wide effort to have them revoked, to get OPA 70 approved and to keep residents informed throughout the process.
The Mayor’s job is not to manage Oakville on behalf of Queen’s Park.
It is to stand up for Oakville and protect our town.
Sean O'Meara
I will push back.
Working constructively with the Province is important, and as Mayor I will always be prepared to sit down and find solutions. But cooperation does not mean capitulation.
There will be times when Oakville and the Province disagree. When provincial decisions threaten our ability to properly plan our community, the Mayor's responsibility is to advocate forcefully for Oakville. That means using every reasonable tool available: direct negotiations with Ministers and the Premier, working with our local MPPs, Council resolutions, public advocacy, municipal associations, legal options where appropriate, and partnerships with other municipalities facing similar challenges.
I believe Oakville can accommodate significant growth. I believe Midtown should become a vibrant transit-oriented community. But I also believe the people who live here have the right to help shape what their community becomes.
My position throughout this process has been consistent: growth should not require secrecy, provincial partnership should not require silence, and decisions that will shape Oakville for generations should not be made behind closed doors.