Richmond Hill and southern York Region are becoming significant locations for data centres. Existing, under-construction and proposed facilities could eventually consume approximately 22 million litres of water every day, the equivalent consumption of about 100,000 residents. Industry estimates also suggest they could require more than 500 megawatts of electrical capacity over the next decade.

Ward 1 Councillor Carol Davidson deserves credit for asking York Region to assess whether our infrastructure planning has fully accounted for their combined demands.

This question is especially important because York Region already faces approximately $4.9 billion in financial pressures over the next decade. These pressures include growth-related infrastructure, reduced development-charge revenue, transit, wastewater infrastructure, and community housing.

Data centres did not create this financial pressure. However, before additional facilities are approved, residents deserve to know what infrastructure they will require, who will pay for it, and what Richmond Hill will receive in return.

How much property-tax revenue will these facilities generate for Richmond Hill and York Region? How many permanent local jobs will they create after construction is completed? Will the developers pay the full cost of any necessary water and wastewater expansion? What measures will be required to reduce water consumption and recycle water?

Approximately half of a typical Richmond Hill property-tax bill goes to York Region. Residents should not be expected to subsidize infrastructure expansions primarily benefiting highly resource-intensive private developments.

Data centres can bring investment and strengthen Richmond Hill’s commercial tax base. But economic development should be measured by its net benefit, not simply by the size or cost of a project.

The issue is not whether infrastructure is needed. Growth requires infrastructure. The real question is whether that growth is being planned and funded responsibly.

Before further major approvals proceed, Richmond Hill and York Region should publish a clear accounting of:

• Expected water and wastewater demand
• Required infrastructure upgrades and who will pay for them
• Municipal and regional property-tax revenue
• Development charges and other financial contributions
• Permanent local employment
• Water recycling and conservation requirements

Richmond Hill should welcome responsible investment, but residents deserve to know that the benefits will exceed the long-term public costs.

After traffic and road safety, snow removal is probably the second most common concern I hear while speaking with residents across Ward 2. One topic comes up repeatedly every winter: the windrow left at the end of driveways after roads are plowed.

Richmond Hill has established service standards for clearing roads, sidewalks, and residential windrows following a snowfall. I appreciate the hard work of our snow removal crews, who often work long hours under difficult weather conditions to keep our community moving.

But perhaps we should ask a different question.

Are we measuring success by meeting a service standard, or by helping residents regain access to their community as quickly and effectively as possible?

Many seniors have told me they were unable to leave their homes because they first had to wait for the road to be plowed, and then wait again for the windrow at the end of their driveway to be cleared. For some, that meant delaying medical appointments, postponing grocery shopping, or simply remaining home longer than they wanted.

At the same time, I have also heard another perspective.

Many working residents tell me they simply cannot wait. By the time the City’s windrow equipment arrives, they have already shoveled the end of their driveway themselves because they needed to get to work, take their children to school, or attend an appointment.

This raises an important public policy question.

If many residents have already cleared their own windrow before the City arrives, is the current program being delivered at the right time to achieve its intended purpose?

That doesn’t mean the program lacks value. For many seniors, residents with disabilities, and others who are physically unable to clear heavy snow, windrow clearing remains an important service that helps them maintain their independence.

The question, therefore, is not whether the service should exist. The question is whether it can be delivered more effectively.

Could road plows and windrow clearing equipment operate more closely together? Could routes be optimized to reduce waiting times? Could neighbourhoods with a higher concentration of seniors or residents with mobility challenges receive priority following major snowfalls?

These are questions worth exploring before concluding that the only answer is to spend more money.

I also don’t believe Richmond Hill should simply accept a service standard because neighbouring municipalities have adopted similar ones. Good municipal government should continuously ask whether existing services still meet the needs of today’s residents.

Perhaps success should not be measured by whether we met a published service standard, but by whether residents can safely leave their homes to get to work, attend medical appointments, buy groceries, and maintain their independence as soon as reasonably possible.

Good public policy isn’t simply about adding services or cutting services. It’s about regularly reviewing whether a service is achieving its intended purpose, providing good value for taxpayers, and meeting the needs of the people it was designed to serve.

While speaking with residents on Canada Day, an interesting idea came up during one of our conversations: could our community festivals do more to support local businesses?

Richmond Hill hosts many successful community events throughout the year. Festivals such as Taste of Asia, Ribfest, Canada Day celebrations, and other cultural and community events bring thousands of residents together and help build a strong sense of community.

Many of these events are held at Richmond Green, which offers excellent space, parking, and facilities for large gatherings. It is an excellent venue for events that attract large crowds.

There are practical reasons why many events are held in parks. Parks offer large open spaces, parking, easier traffic management, and fewer disruptions to nearby residents and businesses. Organizing a street festival requires additional planning, road closures, transit coordination, emergency access, and close cooperation with local businesses.

That additional planning may be worthwhile if it helps support local businesses, encourages residents and visitors to explore different parts of Richmond Hill, and creates vibrant business districts that continue to benefit long after the festival ends. The goal is not to replace successful park events, but to consider whether some future festivals could bring additional benefits to the community.

With those considerations in mind, several residents suggested that Richmond Hill could explore hosting selected festivals as street festivals or in commercial areas where local businesses could benefit from increased foot traffic.

When visitors attend a street festival, they often discover restaurants, cafés, bakeries, specialty shops, and local businesses they may not have visited before. Many stay for lunch or dinner, enjoy dessert, or return another day after discovering a new favourite place.

Supporting local businesses does not always require new spending. Sometimes it simply means planning community events in ways that encourage residents and visitors to experience more of what Richmond Hill has to offer.

I am not suggesting that every festival should move from Richmond Green. It remains an excellent location for many large events.

Perhaps the better question is whether Richmond Hill should consider a mix of park festivals and street festivals, allowing different neighbourhoods and business districts to share in the economic and community benefits.

Community festivals should bring people together. Whenever possible, they should also support local businesses, strengthen our business districts, and showcase everything Richmond Hill has to offer. Thoughtful planning can accomplish both.

Imagine a neighbourhood food festival, a summer street festival in Downtown Richmond Hill, or cultural celebrations held in different parts of our city. These events could bring people together while encouraging residents to discover local restaurants, cafés, and small businesses throughout our community.

York Region is facing nearly $5 billion in financial pressures over the next decade. That should concern every Richmond Hill taxpayer.

Approximately half of a typical Richmond Hill property tax bill is allocated to York Region. While the City and School Boards also form part of the overall tax bill, significant regional financial pressures are not distant or abstract. They can affect local taxpayers, future budgets, infrastructure planning, service delivery, and long-term affordability.

According to York Region, the Region is facing approximately $4.9 billion in financial impacts over the next 10 years, including growth-related infrastructure pressures, reduced development charge revenues, transit needs, wastewater infrastructure, and community housing requirements.

This is exactly why taxpayers need clear oversight, responsible budgeting, and honest communication from every level of local government.

The issue is not whether infrastructure is needed. Growth requires infrastructure. The real question is whether growth is being planned and funded responsibly, and whether taxpayers are being protected from decisions that create long-term financial pressure.

Richmond Hill residents are already facing concerns about future property tax increases. Because property taxes are influenced by decisions at the Regional, City, and School Board levels, residents deserve a clear understanding of how growing financial pressures at each level may affect affordability.

Before taxpayers are asked to pay more, government must show stronger discipline, clearer priorities, and better accountability.

As a CPA with more than 30 years of experience in finance and oversight, I believe residents deserve straightforward answers:

• How will these regional pressures affect future property taxes?
• Which projects are essential, and which can be delayed or reconsidered?
• How will York Region protect taxpayers while maintaining core services?
• What impact will this have on Richmond Hill residents over the next decade?

Good governance means asking these questions early, not after the financial pressure becomes unavoidable.

Richmond Hill taxpayers deserve transparency, discipline, and responsible decisions at both the City and Regional level.

A recent collision in Ward 2 serves as an important reminder that road safety is not an abstract issue. It affects residents every day.

A woman and child were recently taken to hospital following a collision near Bayview Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive, an area familiar to many Ward 2 residents.

My thoughts are with those involved, and I wish them a full recovery.

Whenever incidents like this occur, they remind us why residents continue to raise concerns about speeding, traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, school-area safety, and the growing number of e-bikes and motorized devices using local streets and sidewalks.

Road safety is not about headlines or politics. It is about ensuring that children can walk safely to school, seniors can cross the street with confidence, and families can move around their neighbourhoods safely.

Richmond Hill needs a practical and responsive approach to road safety. When residents identify concerns, the City should review problem areas quickly and consider appropriate solutions, including improved signage, traffic calming measures, protected crossings, school-zone improvements, pavement markings, education, and enforcement where necessary.

At the same time, solutions must be carefully designed. Safety improvements should enhance neighbourhoods, not create unnecessary barriers, parking problems, or access challenges for residents.

A safe city should not become an unfriendly city.

Residents deserve action, follow-through, and practical solutions that improve safety while respecting the character and livability of our neighbourhoods.

Yesterday’s police incident near Bayview Avenue and Elgin Mills Road understandably raised concerns among many Richmond Hill residents.

As someone who lives only a short distance from where the incident occurred, I understand why residents felt unsettled seeing a significant police response in the middle of the day near local businesses and neighbourhood homes.

York Regional Police later confirmed that officers responded to reports of a suspect with a firearm and that the individual was taken into custody safely without injuries reported.

While the situation ended without physical harm, incidents like this still affect how residents feel about safety in their communities.

This concern is not isolated to one event.

In recent years, Richmond Hill residents have witnessed violent incidents, shootings, tragic attacks, and ongoing discussions around neighbourhood safety and quality of life in different parts of the city.

Residents have also repeatedly raised concerns about disorder, trespassing, public disturbances, and whether enough is being done to address issues before they escalate.

These concerns should not be dismissed.

At the same time, public safety discussions must remain responsible and balanced. Fearmongering and division do not strengthen communities, and vulnerable people should not be unfairly stigmatized or targeted.

Richmond Hill is a compassionate community, and we should continue supporting prevention programs, youth outreach, mental health services, and community partnerships that help people before situations worsen.

But compassion and accountability must go together.

Residents deserve leadership that listens seriously when concerns are repeatedly raised by local families, seniors, and business owners.

Public safety is not about political slogans. It is about ensuring residents feel protected, heard, and respected in their everyday lives.

We need practical leadership that focuses on:

• Stronger community engagement
• Better coordination between agencies
• Prevention and early intervention
• Responsible enforcement
• Transparent communication with residents

Richmond Hill can remain both compassionate and safe. We do not have to choose between the two.

As our city continues to grow, public safety and quality of life must remain priorities for every neighbourhood and every resident.

Transparency is not simply about publishing information. It is about presenting information in a way that residents can easily read, understand, and use.

I previously raised concerns that the format of Council expense reports made it difficult for residents to understand the information being presented.

The issue was not whether the information existed. The issue was whether residents could easily understand what they were looking at. Key figures were not clearly presented, and some labels could reasonably be interpreted in different ways.

To illustrate the concern, I reorganized and highlighted key sections myself. The original document and my suggested version are provided below.

I am encouraged to see staff now recommending improvements to constituency reporting and exploring better public reporting tools.

Transparency is not simply about publishing information. It is about ensuring residents can read it, understand it, and use it.

Good governance means providing information that people can actually understand.

At the beginning of this Council term, members signed a pledge to govern with transparency, responsibility, and accountability, and to build public trust.

That commitment matters.

I reviewed By-law 102-22 regarding Council remuneration. The original by-law stated that Council remuneration would increase by 1.70 percent effective January 1, 2022.

Later, on November 22, 2023, under Item 19.3, Council amended that wording so the 1.70 percent increase was effective January 1, 2023, and added a further 2 percent increase effective January 1, 2024.

In simple terms, the amendment did two things: it corrected the effective date of the 1.70 percent increase from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023, and it added a further 2 percent increase effective January 1, 2024.

The amendment was carried unanimously in open session, after arising from a closed session item related to labour relations.

Mistakes can happen. I understand that. As an accountant, I’ve learned that it is not enough for something to appear correct. It must be accurate, factual, and clearly explained so residents can understand it.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that staff were wrong in treating the date correction as a technical amendment, or that staff failed in their duties. Staff work within the procedures, reports, and direction before them.

However, Council should hold itself to a higher standard than simply asking what is technically required.

However, the issue is not whether the amendment was approved in open session. It was.

The issue is how the change was communicated to residents.

From reviewing the Council meeting videos, the change was described as a “technical adjustment” to the by-law. However, there was no clear, plain-language explanation that the effective date was being corrected from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023.

For residents watching the meeting, this wording would not make it clear what was actually being changed.

On a matter involving Council remuneration, residents should not have to interpret technical language or review documents afterward to understand what changed.

Transparency should mean more than recording a correction. It should mean clearly explaining the correction to residents.

This raises a fair question:

Did Council meet the standard of transparency, responsibility, and accountability that it pledged to uphold?

Residents deserve clear communication, especially when decisions involve public funds and Council compensation. Accountability is not just about following procedure. It is about ensuring residents can clearly see what changed, why it changed, and how decisions are made on their behalf.

Richmond Hill residents deserve a Council that understands its responsibilities, uses its time wisely, and focuses on results it can actually deliver.

Municipal government has an important role in protecting the environment and preparing the community for the future.

Richmond Hill can take practical action by maintaining parks and trees, improving stormwater infrastructure, reducing flood risks, making City facilities more energy-efficient, planning responsibly for growth, and preparing for more extreme weather.

These are areas where local government has responsibility, authority, and the ability to produce measurable results.

However, many broader issues commonly discussed at municipal Council are primarily the responsibility of York Region, the Province, or the federal government.

York Region is responsible for major services such as public transit, regional roads, policing, water and wastewater systems, public health, community housing, and many social services.

The Province and federal government control many broader policies involving energy, emissions standards, transportation regulation, taxation, healthcare, education, criminal law, and national or international commitments.

Richmond Hill Council may sometimes choose to express a position or encourage another level of government to act. That can be appropriate when an issue has a clear impact on local residents.

But Council should be honest about the difference between advocacy and action.

Passing a resolution does not necessarily mean Richmond Hill has the authority to implement it or that the underlying problem has been solved.

Every motion still requires Council time, staff time, agenda preparation, research, administration, and follow-up. Those resources are paid for by residents and should be used carefully.

When taxpayers are being warned about future financial pressures and possible tax increases, City Hall should ensure that its time and resources remain focused on core municipal responsibilities.

That includes roads, local infrastructure, fire services, snow clearing, parks, recreation, planning, by-law enforcement, community safety, responsible budgeting, and reliable public services.

If Richmond Hill has the authority to act, Council should act.

If another level of government is responsible, Council should work with that government and advocate where appropriate, but it should not present a symbolic motion as a substitute for measurable results.

This principle also applies to climate action.

I support practical local measures that improve resilience, protect the environment, reduce long-term costs, and provide clear benefits to residents.

Planting trees, protecting natural areas, improving stormwater systems, preparing for extreme weather, and reducing energy use in municipal buildings are all reasonable areas for City action.

At the same time, City Hall should be cautious about moving into personal lifestyle choices or broader policy areas where the municipality has limited authority and where the benefits to Richmond Hill residents are difficult to measure.

Good intentions matter, but good government also requires priorities, discipline, and accountability.

My approach is simple: focus on what Richmond Hill can control, cooperate with York Region and other governments where necessary, and use Council’s time and taxpayer resources on actions that deliver real local benefits.

Residents deserve results, not just resolutions.

A consultant report warned that Richmond Hill may face property tax increases of 6 to 7 percent annually. That may not sound alarming at first, but when increases are repeated year after year and compounded over time, the burden becomes significant.

After only a few years, families are no longer dealing with a modest adjustment. They are facing a much higher cost of living, a heavier tax bill, and a City Hall that keeps asking for more.

That should concern every homeowner, senior on a fixed income, young family, and small business in Richmond Hill.

When families face rising costs, they do not keep spending as usual. They cut back, focus on essentials, and make careful choices.

City Hall should do the same.

Before raising taxes, the City must show that non-essential spending has been reviewed, priorities are clear, and every dollar is being used responsibly.

The City says this is about planning for the future. I agree that we must invest in core infrastructure, maintain public assets, and prepare for growth. But fiscal responsibility means making hard choices. It means setting priorities. And it means recognizing that residents are not a limitless source of revenue.

The City’s own Financial Master Plan makes this clear. It states that the current capital forecast is not sustainable at its present scale and that reducing the size of the capital program would be necessary to lower tax increases and reduce the need for debt.

That is the real issue.

A city cannot keep approving more and more commitments without considering what taxpayers can realistically support. Leadership means knowing the difference between what is necessary and what is simply desirable. Government cannot try to do everything at once.

The bigger risk is overextension. A city can be in a strong financial position today and still make choices that create long-term pressure tomorrow. When too many projects and commitments are pursued at the same time without clear priorities, costs rise, discipline weakens, and taxpayers are left carrying the burden.

Richmond Hill must stay focused on what matters most: roads, public safety, infrastructure repair, reliable city services, and smart planning. These are the essentials residents depend on, and these are the priorities City Hall must protect first.

The good news is that Richmond Hill is in a strong financial position today. That strength should be protected. It should not become an excuse to overextend, overpromise, and overtax.

We also need to be honest about who carries the burden. Richmond Hill relies heavily on homeowners for property tax revenue. When spending grows too quickly, it is residents who are expected to absorb the cost. They should not be treated as a limitless source of revenue every budget season.

I do not believe that is acceptable.

My approach is simple. Before asking families for more, City Hall must prove that every dollar is being spent wisely. Before taking on new commitments, Council must show they are necessary. Before expanding the wish list, we must protect the basics.

Fiscal responsibility is not about saying no to progress. It is about saying yes to the right priorities. It is about discipline, restraint, and respect for taxpayers.

Richmond Hill deserves leadership that is focused, responsible, and accountable. We need a City Hall that knows what matters, spends carefully, and never forgets who pays the bills. If elected, I will fight for responsible spending, disciplined priorities, and respect for every taxpayer dollar.

Richmond Hill residents do not expect perfection from City Hall. But they do expect common sense.

Before asking families, seniors, and small businesses to pay more in property taxes, the City should prove it is focused on the basics first. That means safe roads, reliable public services, public safety, and infrastructure kept in good repair.

This should not be controversial. It should be the standard.

When families face rising costs, they do not keep spending as usual. They cut back, focus on essentials, and make careful choices.

City Hall should do the same.

Before raising taxes, the City must show that non-essential spending has been reviewed, priorities are clear, and every dollar is being used responsibly.

The issue is not just whether the City spends money. The issue is whether the City is spending on the right things, in the right order, at the right time.

The current ten-year capital forecast is beyond the City’s financial capacity at its present scale. The pressure comes from the size of the overall capital plan, which goes well beyond current and historical spending levels. That is exactly why Richmond Hill needs a basics-first approach.

When families face rising costs, they make choices. They protect essentials first. They pay the mortgage, buy groceries, keep the lights on, and fix what cannot be ignored. City Hall should think the same way.

Richmond Hill has many responsibilities. The City delivers fire and emergency services, roads, snow clearing, waste management, infrastructure repair and replacement, planning, by-law services, parks, recreation, and more. But when financial pressure grows, leadership means distinguishing between what is necessary right now and what can wait.

That means fixing what residents rely on every day before expanding the wish list.

It means protecting roads and transportation, public safety, infrastructure repair, and dependable local services before moving ahead with projects that may be desirable but are not urgent.

It means being honest that every dollar has a cost and every new commitment eventually lands on the shoulders of taxpayers.

Richmond Hill is in a strong fiscal position today, and that is good news. But a strong position is something to protect, not something to take for granted. Good finances are built with discipline, and discipline starts with priorities.

Responsible government requires sequencing, restraint, and focus. It is not about saying no to progress. It is about making sure progress happens in the right order and at a pace residents can afford.

My view is simple.

Before City Hall asks residents for more, it should show residents that the basics come first.

Before adding new commitments, it should prove that core services are protected.

Before expanding spending, it should demonstrate that every major project has been tested against affordability, necessity, and long-term value.

Residents are not asking for everything at once. They are asking for a City that works, a budget that makes sense, and a Council that knows the difference between priority and excess.

That is the approach I believe Richmond Hill needs. If you believe City Hall should focus on the basics first, protect core services, and spend taxpayer dollars more wisely, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Richmond Hill is a great place to live, but growth should do more than add buildings. It should help create better places for residents, families, and local businesses.

Too many residents feel that Richmond Hill lacks welcoming places to gather, enjoy a walk, meet friends, or spend time together as a community.

People want destinations. They want places to eat, relax, stroll, support local businesses, and enjoy local life. They want areas where people stay a little longer instead of simply driving through.

When residents point to places like Markham Main Street or Newmarket Main Street, they are not saying Richmond Hill should copy another city. They are saying Richmond Hill should create more great places of its own.

That is a fair expectation.

Residents do not just want more development. They want better development.

Too often, development is measured by numbers alone: how many units, how many floors, and how much density. But residents experience growth through traffic, streetscapes, local businesses, public spaces, and whether there are places nearby that feel worth visiting.

That is why responsible planning must be about more than approving buildings. It must be about building community.

Richmond Hill should support walkable destinations, street-level activity, local restaurants, public gathering spaces, and attractive areas that bring people together.

That does not happen by accident. It happens when Council has a vision and expects development to contribute to community life, not just add more pressure.

Richmond Hill should be a place where you can meet family for dinner, enjoy a coffee, take an evening walk, support a local business, and feel proud of the community around you.

We should not settle for growth that only adds density.

We should push for growth that creates better places.

That means supporting local business, encouraging welcoming public spaces, and planning neighbourhoods that are not only functional, but vibrant, walkable, and connected.

Richmond Hill does not need to become another city. It needs to become the best version of itself.

If you believe Richmond Hill should grow in a way that creates better places, stronger local business, and a more vibrant community, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Residents deserve to feel safe in their own neighbourhood.

That should never be up for debate.

Richmond Hill is a caring community. We believe young people facing crisis, addiction, homelessness, or instability need help and support. Compassion matters. But compassion and public safety must go together. One should never come at the expense of the other.

In recent months, many residents have raised serious concerns about safety around the youth centre area. They have spoken about used needles, drug activity, trespassing, petty crime, loitering, and a growing sense that the surrounding neighbourhood is being asked to accept conditions that should never become normal.

These concerns should not be dismissed.

They should not be minimized.

And they should not be brushed aside as the price of helping vulnerable people.

A caring city does not choose between compassion and safety.

It delivers both.

Residents have every right to expect clean parks, safe sidewalks, secure homes, and peace of mind in the communities where they live. Families should not have to worry about what their children might find on the ground. Seniors should not feel uneasy walking in their own neighbourhood. Homeowners and nearby residents should not feel like their concerns are being ignored.

At the same time, young people in need deserve support that is structured, responsible, and managed in a way that protects both clients and the surrounding community.

This is why Richmond Hill needs answers.

What safety measures are currently in place around the facility and surrounding area?

What coordination exists between service providers, York Regional Police, City staff, and local residents?

What reporting process should residents use when they encounter used needles, trespassing, suspicious activity, or disorder?

What improvements can be made right now to address the impact on the neighbourhood?

And how will the public know whether the situation is getting better?

These are reasonable questions.

They are not attacks.

They are the kinds of questions responsible leadership should be asking.

Too often, residents feel they are left with frustration but no information. They are told to be patient, told to be understanding, or told that someone else is responsible. But leadership means stepping in, demanding clarity, and making sure community concerns are taken seriously.

My position is simple.

Supporting vulnerable youth matters.

So does protecting neighbourhood safety.

The people living near this area should not be made to feel invisible. Their concerns are real. Their quality of life matters. And their right to safety matters.

We need more transparency, better communication, and clear accountability from all parties involved.

We need practical action, not vague assurances.

Given the ongoing concerns raised by nearby residents, the City should review whether the current location, operating model, safety measures, and neighbourhood supports are working as intended.

This does not mean turning our backs on vulnerable youth. It means making sure support services are delivered responsibly, with proper safeguards for both the people using the service and the surrounding community.

If the current arrangement is creating repeated safety concerns for residents, then City Hall has a responsibility to ask whether changes are needed.

That means stronger coordination, faster response to neighbourhood concerns, clear cleanup protocols, public communication, and measurable steps to improve safety and confidence in the area.

A good community is one that shows compassion.

A strong community is one that shows compassion and responsibility at the same time.

Richmond Hill residents should not be forced to choose between compassion and safety. They deserve both. That is exactly what I believe City Hall should fight for, and if you believe in a safer, more compassionate, and more accountable Richmond Hill, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Richmond Hill should take a serious look at whether its current two-step council meeting process is still the best use of time and resources.

Committee of the Whole is supposed to be where the main discussion, debate, and review take place before matters move to Council for formal approval. That structure may have a purpose. But if most of the substantive discussion is already happening at Committee of the Whole, and the Council meetings that follow are often very short and largely procedural, then it is fair to ask whether the current process is creating duplication without enough added value.

Many Council meetings wrap up in about an hour, but that total includes procedural items such as the anthem, announcements, agenda approval, statutory declarations, and other formalities. As a result, the time spent on actual Council debate is often far less than an hour, sometimes only 20 to 30 minutes. When that is the case, residents are entitled to ask whether the staff preparation, administrative support, and public resources required for a separate formal meeting are being used efficiently.

If the substantive discussion has already taken place at Committee of the Whole, then a follow-up Council meeting devoted mostly to confirmation and procedure may not be the best use of City Hall’s time or taxpayer resources.

Every additional step in government comes with a cost: staff preparation, administrative support, agenda management, and more time spent moving the same matter from one stage to another. That may be justified when it clearly improves scrutiny, transparency, or decision-making. But if the second meeting is often limited to formal confirmation after the real debate has already taken place, residents are right to ask whether there is a more efficient way.

Good governance is not about how many meetings are held. It is about whether decisions are made carefully, transparently, and efficiently.

Families and businesses are expected to value time, avoid duplication, and use resources wisely. City Hall should do the same. When a process results in one meeting for the real discussion and another meeting that is often much shorter and focused largely on procedure, it is reasonable to review whether the structure still makes sense in practice.

This is not an argument against accountability or public debate. Those are essential. Residents deserve open discussion and careful decision-making. But they also deserve a system that respects staff time, respects taxpayer resources, and avoids unnecessary layers wherever possible.

If Richmond Hill can maintain transparency and accountability while streamlining its two-step Council meeting process, then that option should be on the table.

Government should not be more complicated than it needs to be. It should be effective, understandable, and respectful of the people who pay for it.

Richmond Hill should always be open to reviewing its processes and asking a simple question: does this structure still serve residents well, or is it time to consider a more efficient approach?

This same principle should apply more broadly. Council should focus its time on matters where the City has real authority and where decisions can produce real results for residents.

This does not mean Council should ignore serious issues such as hate, discrimination, or public safety. Those issues matter deeply. But Council should be careful to focus on actions within municipal authority, while urging the appropriate federal, provincial, regional, and policing bodies to take action.

When motions are primarily symbolic or directed at matters outside municipal jurisdiction, they may still be well-intentioned, but they consume staff time, agenda time, research, and follow-up. That is not free. If City Hall wants residents to accept higher costs, it should first show that it is reducing unnecessary process, avoiding duplication, and focusing on work that directly serves Richmond Hill.

A councillor’s role is not just to attend meetings and approve motions. It is also to think critically about how City Hall operates, identify where processes are outdated or duplicative, and look for ways to use staff time and taxpayer resources more wisely. I believe it is time for change, and if elected, I would propose eliminating Committee of the Whole to create a more efficient, accountable, and cost-effective Council process.