Youssef Roshdy

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 new Official Plan as adopted by Council, recognizing that it has been submitted to the Province for approval and is not yet in effect.

I do not, however, regard adoption of a long-term plan as the end of the planning process or as a blank cheque for development.

Milton needs housing, employment lands, transportation infrastructure and a broader tax base. The key question is whether they arrive in the right order.

My priority would be implementation that ties growth much more clearly to infrastructure capacity. New density should be accompanied by realistic plans for roads, transit, water and wastewater, parks, emergency services and community facilities.

I would also want strong attention paid to transitions between higher-density development and established low-rise neighbourhoods, protection of employment lands, and preservation of rural, agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas.

The Official Plan should be treated as a living planning framework. If monitoring shows that infrastructure is falling materially behind population growth, Council should be prepared to adjust phasing and implementation rather than simply continuing growth and asking existing residents to absorb the consequences.

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

Higher density belongs where the transportation network and community infrastructure can support it.

In Ward 4, that means concentrating significant new density around major corridors, planned mixed-use areas and locations such as the Milton Education Village, rather than inserting high-rise development indiscriminately into established residential streets.

Areas around major corridors such as Derry Road, Bronte Street, Louis St. Laurent Avenue and Tremaine Road can accommodate different levels of intensification where appropriate infrastructure and good urban design are in place. The Education Village in particular presents an opportunity to build a walkable, transit-supportive community from the beginning rather than attempting to retrofit one later.

I do not support abrupt high-density development in the middle of established low-rise neighbourhoods without appropriate transitions. Nor should environmentally sensitive lands, the Escarpment, important natural heritage features or productive rural and agricultural areas simply become the next available location for urban expansion.

Density is not inherently good or bad. *Poorly planned density is the problem.*

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

Community opposition must be taken seriously, but elected officials also have a responsibility to make decisions based on planning law, evidence and the policies Council itself has adopted.

If an application genuinely conforms with the Official Plan and applicable law, I would not promise residents that Council can simply reject it because it is unpopular. Doing so can expose the municipality to appeals, costs and potentially a development outcome over which Council has even less control.

Instead, I would determine what residents' actual concerns are—traffic, height, setbacks, privacy, drainage, parking, construction impacts or something else—and determine what can legally be changed, conditioned or mitigated.

Listening to residents does not mean promising an outcome Council has no legal authority to deliver. It means bringing their concerns into the process early enough that they can actually affect the result. ------------------------------

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

Milton's provincial housing target is 21,000 homes by 2031, and Milton has exceeded its annual provincial targets in recent years.

I do not think the number alone tells us whether Milton is succeeding.

If we achieve the numerical target but residents still cannot afford housing, transportation becomes worse, infrastructure falls behind and young people who grew up here cannot afford to remain here, then hitting the target is not enough.

I support Milton doing its share to address Ontario's housing shortage. But the pace of housing construction must be matched by the pace of infrastructure, and the housing mix matters.

We need ownership opportunities, purpose-built rental, family-sized units, townhouses, apartments, seniors' housing and genuinely attainable options—not simply the greatest possible unit count.

My position is therefore: *meet our housing obligations, but measure success by affordability, infrastructure and quality of community as well as unit counts.*

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

Use public land strategically.

Where the Town or Region owns surplus or redevelopment-capable land that is appropriate for housing, I would support partnerships where the public contribution is exchanged for clearly defined and enforceable affordability outcomes.

One model worth considering is retaining public ownership of suitable land through a long-term ground lease while a non-profit, co-operative or qualified development partner provides below-market rental or attainable ownership housing.

Land is one of the largest components of housing cost. Reducing that cost in selected projects can produce affordability more directly than simply adding market supply and hoping prices eventually fall.

Any program would need transparent eligibility requirements, competitive procurement, long-term affordability protections and safeguards preventing publicly supported units from simply becoming speculative investments.

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

Yes, but selectively rather than as a town-wide ideology.

I support pre-zoning for appropriate density around major transit infrastructure, particularly the Milton GO Station area and future higher-order transit nodes. If we say we want transit-oriented communities, our zoning should actually permit them.

I also support reduced parking requirements in genuinely transit-supportive locations. Requiring the same parking ratio beside major transit as in an automobile-dependent neighbourhood adds construction costs and consumes valuable land.

I would consider inclusionary zoning where Ontario law permits it and where economic analysis demonstrates that it can actually produce affordable units without making development unviable.

Different tools belong in different places. ------------------------------

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

This is one area where simply passing another resolution is not enough.

The Milton GO line operates on a heavily used freight corridor outside Metrolinx's control. Expanding passenger service requires substantial infrastructure, senior-government investment and agreements involving the freight railway.

As Regional Councillor, I would push for a permanent intergovernmental working structure involving Milton, Halton Region, Metrolinx, the Province, federal representatives and the railway, with published milestones rather than occasional political announcements.

I would advocate for:

-

a defined corridor-capacity and infrastructure plan; -

identified capital requirements and funding responsibilities; -

regular public reporting on progress toward expanded Milton service; -

protection of land and infrastructure required for future passenger capacity; -

stronger Milton Transit connections to the GO station so expanded rail service can actually be used effectively; and -

coordination with Mississauga and other municipalities along the corridor, because this cannot realistically be solved by Milton acting alone.

The role of a municipal representative is not to pretend we control GO Transit.

It is to turn Milton into an organized, persistent and evidence-based advocate that other governments cannot conveniently ignore.

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

Yes, where ridership, population growth and service data justify the investment.

Milton has already expanded service significantly, including seven-day service, and further service improvements are continuing. The long-term objective should be a network residents can rely on for work, school and daily life rather than one useful only for a limited number of trips.

I would favour incremental expansion based on ridership, population growth and demonstrated service gaps.

Funding should come from a combination of development-related revenue where legally available, provincial and federal transit programs, fare revenue, operational efficiencies and the municipal tax base where necessary.

I would not promise major service expansion while simultaneously promising that nobody will have to pay for it.

Responsible leadership means telling residents both what a service costs and what they receive in return.

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

My choice would be the *Derry Road/Bronte Street area and the surrounding Derry corridor*.

Importantly, Derry Road is a Halton Regional road while surrounding local roads involve Town responsibilities. A Regional Councillor sits on both councils, which puts this office in a particularly useful position to coordinate the two levels rather than allowing residents to be bounced between them.

My first step would be a joint Town-Halton operational review using current turning counts, collision data, queue lengths and peak-period travel times rather than designing a solution around anecdotes.

Short-term measures should examine signal optimization, turning movements, intersection geometry, pedestrian safety and signal coordination along the corridor.

The longer-term answer is not simply another lane everywhere. We need to prevent continued growth from funnelling more trips onto the same few arterials by completing the planned transportation network, improving north-south connectivity, expanding transit and making more local trips possible without requiring residents to use Derry Road for everything. ------------------------------

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

My order would be:

*1. Deferred or re-phased non-critical projects* *2. Responsible debt for long-life capital infrastructure* *3. Higher property taxes* *4. Reduced core service levels*

That ranking requires an important qualification.

I would defer or re-phase projects that are desirable but not immediately necessary before reducing essential services or imposing unnecessary tax increases.

Debt can be appropriate when it finances long-life infrastructure that will serve residents for decades. Future residents who use that infrastructure can appropriately contribute to paying for it. What I oppose is using debt to cover routine operating expenses.

Property taxes may sometimes have to increase to maintain services and infrastructure, but tax increases should come after Council has reviewed spending, project phasing, reserves, procurement, external funding and efficiencies.

Reducing essential service levels—fire protection, road maintenance, transit reliability, community safety or core infrastructure maintenance—would be my last choice because allowing essential infrastructure to deteriorate frequently costs taxpayers substantially more later.

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

For the *Town-controlled portion*, my planning objective for 2027 would be approximately *2 to 4 per cent*, subject to the actual budget, inflation, assessment impacts, contractual obligations and service pressures.

I am deliberately giving a range rather than pretending that a responsible budget can be reduced to a campaign slogan before the numbers are available.

That discipline matters particularly after the Town's portion of residential property taxes increased *6.94 per cent for 2026*, alongside a *4.59 per cent Regional increase*, resulting in an estimated *4.75 per cent blended residential increase*.

Residents are entitled to ask whether increases of that magnitude are becoming structural and what Council is doing to bring the rate of spending growth under control.

Before supporting a Town increase above that range, I would expect Council to demonstrate that it had examined discretionary expenditures, project timing, vacancies, procurement, external consulting, reserves, user-fee revenue and available provincial or federal funding.

Exceeding the range would require a clearly demonstrated reason—for example, an urgent public-safety requirement, unavoidable infrastructure obligation, significant contractual or inflationary pressure, or evidence that failing to invest now would ultimately cost taxpayers more.

Most importantly, Council should identify publicly what portion of an increase maintains existing services, what portion pays for growth, and what portion funds new or enhanced services.

I would rather give residents an honest range with those conditions than promise an artificially low number and later hide the consequences through service reductions.

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

I would add a dedicated *neighbourhood traffic-safety implementation fund* tied directly to evidence from traffic studies and resident reports.

Residents repeatedly raise speeding, dangerous crossings and cut-through traffic, but too often the response becomes another study followed by a long wait for implementation.

The fund would allow appropriate lower-cost interventions—crossings, traffic-calming measures, signage, signal improvements and other neighbourhood safety measures—to move from evidence to implementation faster.

I would look for offsetting savings by scrutinizing discretionary external consulting and communications spending and bringing work in-house where Town staff can reasonably and cost-effectively perform it. ------------------------------

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?

The first requirement is honesty about jurisdiction.

Milton Council cannot order Ontario to build a school, hire a family doctor or expand hospital services. Pretending otherwise makes for good campaign material but bad government.

What Council can do is provide population and development data, protect appropriate sites through planning, coordinate municipal infrastructure, bring school boards and healthcare institutions into growth discussions earlier, and advocate collectively with the Province.

I would establish a public *growth-services advocacy scorecard*, updated at least twice a year, identifying Milton's major requests to other governments and public agencies—for example, school capacity, hospital and healthcare investment and provincial transportation infrastructure.

For each priority, residents should be able to see:

-

what Milton requested; -

which government or agency is responsible; -

when advocacy meetings took place; -

what commitments were received; -

the expected timeline; and -

whether the commitment was actually delivered.

That is how residents should measure advocacy: *not by photographs of meetings, but by outcomes.*

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

I strongly support the Milton Education Village, but its success should be measured by whether it becomes a genuine education, innovation and employment district—not simply another residential development carrying an education-themed name.

Its priorities should be:

*First*, permanent and expanding post-secondary institutions and the supporting innovation and employment district.

*Second*, water, wastewater, roads and transit capacity keeping pace with population growth.

*Third*, a walkable, mixed-use community with housing, services, parks and active transportation.

*Fourth*, strong integration with long-term care, schools, recreation and other community services.

The current secondary-plan framework contemplates *at least 22,000 people and jobs by 2051*, including an innovation district intended to accommodate approximately *2,900 knowledge-based jobs*.

That employment component matters enormously. Milton should not continue growing primarily as a bedroom community while residents have to commute elsewhere for opportunity.

I want Council to publish clearer milestone reporting for infrastructure, institutional development, employment and residential growth so residents can see whether the education and employment components are actually keeping pace with housing.

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

I would prioritize additional *indoor multipurpose recreation and community capacity in south and southwest Milton*, particularly as the Boyne and Education Village areas continue to grow.

We need flexible space capable of supporting indoor courts, youth programming, community organizations, seniors, cultural programming and year-round recreation rather than designing every new facility around a single use.

The precise site should be determined through the Town's facilities and capital-planning process, but the important step is protecting suitable land and planning capacity before growth eliminates the best options. ------------------------------

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

Groundwater protection must be treated as a threshold issue, not something addressed after extraction begins.

Aggregate resources are important to Ontario's construction industry, and the Province exercises significant authority over aggregate licensing. Municipal government nevertheless has a responsibility to use every planning, technical and advocacy tool legally available to protect residents and natural systems.

Where municipal decisions are involved, I would expect rigorous hydrological and hydrogeological evidence, consideration of cumulative impacts rather than examining every operation in isolation, protection of environmentally sensitive areas and the Escarpment, attention to truck routing and road safety, and effective monitoring where operations proceed.

Where credible evidence demonstrates an unacceptable risk to groundwater, private wells or significant natural heritage, economic benefit should not simply override that evidence.

Once an aquifer is damaged, a municipal resolution cannot restore it.

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

Rural residents pay taxes too, and service equity does not mean every rural road must look like an urban street. It means rural residents should receive a reasonable and transparent level of service appropriate to their communities.

For roads, I would protect state-of-good-repair investment in roads, bridges, drainage and culverts and ensure rural conditions are properly incorporated into capital prioritization rather than continually losing out to urban growth projects.

For internet connectivity, I would continue working with telecommunications providers and senior governments to eliminate remaining rural broadband gaps. Reliable high-speed internet is now economic infrastructure, particularly for farms, home businesses, education and remote work.

I also want meaningful rural service standards and performance information reported publicly so residents can see what is planned and what has actually been delivered.

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

My default position for the coming term would be *no further expansion unless updated evidence demonstrates that it is genuinely required*.

Before consuming additional rural or agricultural land, Milton should demonstrate that it is using land already designated for growth efficiently and that existing and planned urban areas cannot reasonably accommodate required population and employment growth.

If an expansion were eventually demonstrated to be necessary, I would require credible servicing and transportation plans, fiscal analysis showing who pays for the resulting infrastructure, protection of key agricultural and natural heritage lands, and a transparent public process.

Expanding the boundary is easy on a map. Paying for decades of roads, pipes and services afterward is the harder decision. ------------------------------

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

I believe strong mayor powers should be used *sparingly and transparently*, not as a substitute for building consensus.

Milton has been subject to Ontario's strong-mayor framework since 2023, so this is not a theoretical question for the next Council.

Council is elected collectively. Major municipal decisions are stronger when representatives debate them openly and reach decisions through the normal democratic process.

There may be circumstances where provincial legislation specifically assigns the Mayor a power or responsibility. Where such a power is used, I believe the rationale should be clear, specific and publicly accessible.

I would oppose using strong mayor powers simply because Council debate is inconvenient or because persuading a majority of elected representatives is difficult.

Efficiency matters. *So does democratic accountability.*

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

I would establish a *Ward 4 public accountability meeting every quarter*, accompanied by an online issue and commitment tracker.

Residents should be able to see the major issues brought to my office, what action has been taken, which level of government is responsible and whether the matter is resolved, pending or outside Council's authority.

The meetings would rotate through different parts of Ward 4 rather than always requiring residents to come to Town Hall.

Door-knocking should not end on election night. The same direct conversations candidates seek during an election should continue throughout the four-year term.

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

Milton needs *change in how we govern, without discarding the institutional knowledge and programs that work.*

Our population has changed, our transportation challenges have changed, our housing market has changed and the scale of development Milton is managing is fundamentally different from what it was twenty years ago.

Government has to evolve with the community.

I am running because I believe Council needs a stronger culture of accountability, measurable outcomes and direct engagement with residents.

My background has taken me through engineering studies, law, business and community representation. Those experiences taught me to look at a problem from different angles: what is technically possible, what is legally permissible, what it costs, and whether the people affected were actually heard.

I am not asking residents to elect me because I believe everything Milton has done is wrong.

I am asking them to elect me because the next stage of Milton's growth requires fresh scrutiny of decisions, greater transparency and representatives willing to challenge the phrase, *“that's how we've always done it.”*

What Halton Region decision from this past term would you have voted differently on?

The area where I would have pushed for a different decision as the term progressed was the *continued commitment of additional public funds to the CN Milton Logistics Hub litigation as the available legal avenues narrowed*.

I understand why Halton fought the project. The concerns surrounding human health, the environment, traffic and infrastructure were serious, and residents deserved vigorous representation.

The legal challenge ultimately cost approximately *$30 million*, according to the Region's Commissioner of Corporate Services and Corporate Counsel as publicly reported after the court proceedings concluded. Those proceedings have now ended, federal approvals are in place and construction is underway.

I was not sitting at the Council table and did not have access to the confidential legal advice available to councillors. I therefore will not pretend I can responsibly identify, in hindsight, one confidentially informed vote that I unquestionably would have cast differently.

What I can say is that, as the litigation progressed and the available legal avenues narrowed, I would have pushed for clearly defined decision points before committing further public funds. Those reviews should have examined cumulative expenditure, probability of success, remaining legal avenues and what additional protection could instead be achieved through compliance, mitigation and monitoring.

As it became increasingly clear that the project could proceed, I would have placed greater emphasis on ensuring rigorous compliance with the *more than 300 conditions* attached to it, including requirements concerning human health, air quality, noise, surface and groundwater, emergency planning and operational practices.

This is not about criticizing the original decision to defend Milton or minimizing the serious health and environmental concerns surrounding the project.

I believe elected officials should fight for residents. But responsible stewardship also requires periodically asking whether the strategy being funded remains the strategy most likely to protect those residents and produce a meaningful result.

Regional priorities — water and wastewater capacity, policing costs, waste — pick the one you would champion.

Water and wastewater capacity.*

It may be the least politically exciting of the three choices, but it is fundamental to Milton's future.

Halton's 2026 Water and Wastewater operating budget is approximately *$286.3 million*, with a *6 per cent net rate increase*. That scale alone demonstrates how central servicing infrastructure is to both growth and household affordability.

Every housing target, employment development and new community ultimately depends on servicing capacity.

My priorities would be to:

-

accelerate infrastructure required for approved growth areas; -

protect state-of-good-repair investment so existing residents are not sacrificed for new growth; -

coordinate Town development decisions with Regional servicing capacity; -

improve transparency around project timelines and infrastructure bottlenecks; -

ensure growth contributes the appropriate share toward growth-related infrastructure within the law; and -

continue investment in basement-flooding mitigation, system resilience and protection of drinking-water sources.

Milton cannot responsibly plan growth first and discover afterward that the pipes, treatment capacity and financing are not ready.

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.

What happened: read, but only 17 characters of text: the page builds itself in the browser and cannot be read this way.

This is a limitation of this site, not a gap in what they have published. Their positions may be on that site in full — the link below goes straight to it.

https://youssefroshdy.ca/

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.