Tahira Haroon

For each theme: what the candidate answered, what their own website says, and what the council record shows if they have sat on Council. The three are set beside each other and left there. Nothing is scored, and no conclusion is drawn on the reader's behalf.

Where their own site speaks to one of these questions the sentence is quoted under that question. Everything else it says is set out in From their site.

Do you support the Official Plan as adopted? If not, what specifically would you seek to change?

I support the overall direction of the Official Plan, particularly the focus on planned growth and complete communities. However, I believe implementation must be closely monitored. Growth should be matched with roads, transit, parks, recreation, schools and other infrastructure. Where gaps become clear, Council should review whether policies or phasing need to change.

Where in your ward do you believe higher density belongs — and where doesn't it?

Higher density makes the most sense around major transit, the GO station, major roads and areas where infrastructure can support it. I do not believe every neighbourhood should be treated the same. Established low-density residential streets, areas near schools and parks, and locations where infrastructure is already under pressure need careful consideration. Density should come with the infrastructure to support it.

When a development application conflicts with community opposition but complies with the Official Plan, how do you decide?

I would listen carefully to residents, but I would also look at the planning evidence, infrastructure capacity, traffic, servicing, environmental impacts and the legal planning framework. Community opposition should never simply be ignored, but Council also has to make decisions based on evidence and the law. My goal would be to find the best outcome for the community while ensuring residents' concerns are properly considered.

Milton is hitting its housing targets. Is that the right target, too low, or too fast?

Housing targets are important, but numbers alone cannot define successful growth. Milton needs housing, but growth must be matched with infrastructure and services. I would rather see growth that is properly planned and supported than simply measure success by how many units are approved.

What is one concrete action council can take to improve attainability for first-time buyers and renters, not just supply volume?

Council should focus on a broader range of housing options, including smaller and more attainable homes, while reviewing municipal policies and fees that can affect the cost of development. We also need to make better use of existing housing and support appropriate secondary units where permitted. Affordability is not solved simply by building more expensive homes.

Should Milton use tools like inclusionary zoning, pre-zoning around transit, or reduced parking minimums? Which, and where?

I would consider these tools where they make sense, particularly around major transit and the GO station. However, they should be applied based on local infrastructure and community conditions. Reducing parking requirements, for example, should not create parking problems on surrounding residential streets.

What, specifically, can a Milton council member do to advance all-day two-way GO service beyond passing motions?

A councillor can work with the Mayor, Halton representatives, Metrolinx and the Province to maintain sustained advocacy, participate in meetings and provide clear evidence of Milton's transportation needs. Council should also continue building the case through ridership, growth and economic data. This cannot be treated as a one-time motion; it requires continued pressure and coordination.

Would you support increasing Milton Transit's budget and service hours, and how would you pay for it?

I support transit service keeping pace with Milton's growth. Milton has already expanded service, including additional service in growing areas. Further increases should be based on ridership demand, service gaps and affordability. I would look first at the existing budget, growth-related funding and available provincial/federal funding before automatically placing the full cost on property taxpayers.

What is the single worst traffic pinch point in your ward, and what is your fix?

The Britannia Road and Louis St. Laurent Avenue area is a significant concern for residents, particularly as the surrounding area continues to grow. I would push for updated traffic analysis, signalization and intersection improvements where warranted, and better coordination between development approvals and transportation infrastructure. I would also continue raising speeding and neighbourhood traffic concerns.

Growth-related revenue is shrinking. Rank your preference: higher property taxes, more debt, deferred projects, or reduced service levels — and defend it.

I would not automatically choose one of these options without reviewing the actual budget pressures. My first priority would be responsible spending: reviewing expenditures, avoiding unnecessary spending and making sure taxpayer money is being used effectively. Essential services and infrastructure should not simply be deferred. Debt should be used carefully for appropriate long-term capital investments, not to cover ongoing operating costs. Tax increases should be considered only after responsible budget review.

What tax increase range do you consider acceptable for 2027, and what would justify exceeding it?

I would want to see the full 2027 budget before committing to a specific number. Residents deserve a transparent explanation of what is driving any increase and what they are receiving in return. If an increase beyond a reasonable level were proposed, I would expect clear evidence that the spending is necessary, that alternatives have been considered and that the Town is protecting essential services.

Name one Town expenditure you would cut, or one you would add.

I would not promise to cut a particular program without reviewing the numbers and its impact on residents. I would prioritize spending that directly supports core municipal services such as roads, snow clearing, parks, public safety, transit and infrastructure. I would also strengthen resources for responding to property maintenance, illegal dumping and neighbourhood concerns.

Healthcare and schools are not municipal responsibilities, but residents feel the gaps locally. What is your advocacy plan, and how will residents measure whether it worked?

I would work with our MPP, MPs, school boards, health partners and Town Council to advocate for Milton's needs. For schools, that means continuing to push for facilities that keep pace with population growth. For healthcare, it means advocating for improved access to primary care and local services. Residents should be able to see what was requested, who was contacted and what response was received.

What is your position on the Milton Education Village's priorities and timeline?

I support the Milton Education Village as a long-term opportunity for education, employment, healthcare, recreation and a complete community. The Town's current plan includes post-secondary institutions, long-term care, housing, parks and employment. The priority should be making sure these components develop in a coordinated way and that transportation and infrastructure keep pace with the community.

What recreation or community facility gap would you prioritise next, and where?

I would prioritize recreation and community facilities based on where population growth is creating the greatest gap. Ward 4 residents have raised concerns about access to parks, recreation and well-maintained public spaces. Before committing to a new facility, I would want a clear assessment of population growth, current capacity, travel distances and future demand.

How should council balance aggregate and quarry operations against groundwater and community concerns?

Council should rely on strong environmental and technical evidence and ensure groundwater, natural heritage, noise, traffic and community impacts are properly assessed. Aggregate resources are important, but that does not mean every proposal should automatically proceed. Residents deserve a transparent process and meaningful consideration of environmental and community concerns.

What is your commitment to rural Milton on roads, internet, and service equity?

Rural residents are Milton residents and should not feel forgotten. I would advocate for safe and properly maintained roads, reliable internet and fair access to municipal services. Rural areas have different needs from urban neighbourhoods, so service planning should recognize those differences rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach.

Should Milton's urban boundary expand further within this term? Under what conditions?

I would not support expansion simply to accommodate growth faster. Any expansion should be based on demonstrated need and supported by a clear infrastructure and financial plan. Roads, transit, water, wastewater, parks, schools and other services need to be considered. Growth should pay its appropriate share and should not leave existing taxpayers carrying an unfair burden.

Would you use, or support the use of, strong mayor powers? Under what circumstances?

Strong mayor powers are now part of the municipal framework, but I believe Council should continue to work collaboratively. I would support using those powers only where they are legally appropriate and where there is a clear public-interest reason. Strong powers should not replace consultation, transparency or respectful debate among elected representatives.

What is one specific change you would make to how council engages residents between elections?

I would create a more direct and consistent Ward-level feedback process. Residents should have an easy way to raise local issues and receive updates about what happened afterward. I would also support regular community meetings where residents can discuss issues before they become major problems. Engagement should not happen only during election campaigns.

What does Milton need more right now — continuity or change — and why are you the answer?

Milton needs both. We should continue what is working, but we also need to change how we respond to growth, infrastructure pressures, affordability and everyday neighbourhood concerns. I am not running to promise that everything can be changed overnight. I am running because I believe residents need a strong, practical voice at Town Hall—someone who will listen, ask questions and hold decisions accountable.

What is the first motion you would bring forward?

My first motion would focus on improving how residents' local service concerns are tracked and followed up, including issues such as illegal dumping, park maintenance, speeding and property standards. Residents should not have to repeatedly report the same problem without knowing what action was taken. I would want a clear process for tracking issues, assigning responsibility and reporting outcomes.

Name a vote from the 2022–2026 term you disagreed with, and what you would have done instead.

As someone who has not previously served on Council, I do not want to pretend I had a vote when I did not. I have followed a number of decisions and planning matters during this term, and I would bring a different approach to some of them. In particular, I believe Council needs to be more proactive about ensuring that infrastructure, services and neighbourhood impacts are considered alongside growth. I would rather be honest about my record than claim a vote I did not have.

Would you support large-scale data centres being developed in our municipality, and what would make you support or oppose a specific project?

No answer to this question.

How would you weigh the economic benefits of a data centre against its use of land, electricity, water, and other municipal infrastructure?

No answer to this question.

Should the municipality actively pursue data-centre investment, or only consider proposals as they come forward?

No answer to this question.

What they said in answer to the questions themselves is under Where they stand, question by question.

Many candidates campaign without a website. Its absence says nothing about them.

Written by other people, not by this site. Headlines and links only, with the outlet and date. Where a piece quotes them directly, that quotation is printed word for word and checked against the article it is attributed to.

None of this changes anything else on this page. A reporter’s summary is their compression of what was said, not the member’s own words, so nothing here is recorded as a position or compared against one. Where they are quoted directly, those words are theirs — and they are shown here rather than folded into a stance they did not write.

They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.

They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.

They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.

They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.

They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.

This is a record of what the Town certified and what the candidate publishes themselves. It contains no rating, ranking or endorsement, and no assessment of any candidate. Corrections are welcome and acted on within 48 hours — see the methodology page.