Before the Ballot- The Candidate's Edition- How to Canvass a Ward Without Losing Track of It

A strong ground campaign needs to answer three questions at almost any point during the election: Where have we been? What did we learn? Where do we need to go next?

Without a system, candidates can spend weeks canvassing only to discover that some neighbourhoods were visited repeatedly while others were missed entirely. Volunteers may collect valuable information that never makes its way back to the campaign. Residents who asked for a follow-up may never receive one. That is almost guaranteed to lose that vote(s). Streets can be forgotten, apartment buildings overlooked and precious campaign hours wasted.

The solution is a canvassing operation that treats the ward as a series of manageable territories rather than one enormous map.

Map the Entire Ward-  Before the first serious canvass begins, divide the ward into clearly defined geographic sections. These might be neighbourhoods, polling subdivisions, apartment clusters or groups of streets that can reasonably be covered during a single canvassing session. Each area should have a unique name or number so there is never any confusion about where a team has been assigned.

The objective is simple: every residential area should appear somewhere in the campaign's canvassing plan. Create a master tracking document listing every street and, where practical, the address ranges to be covered. Larger streets should be divided into sections. Apartment and condominium buildings should be listed separately because they often require different access arrangements and canvassing strategies.

The campaign should then track each area through stages such as - not started, partially canvassed, completed and revisit required. This immediately gives the campaign manager a visual picture of the ground operation.

Think in Routes, Not Random Streets-  One of the most common inefficiencies in canvassing is approaching it casually: driving to a neighbourhood, parking the car and deciding where to knock once everyone arrives. Routes should be prepared beforehand. A good route allows a candidate or canvassing team to move continuously without repeatedly crossing major roads, retracing steps or walking long distances between doors.

Whenever possible, complete both sides of a street systematically. If a street cannot be finished, record exactly where the canvass stopped. "Part of Maple Avenue completed" is not useful. "Maple Avenue, numbers 1–117 completed; resume at 119" is. Write it down- trust us, you won’t remember. That level of precision prevents the next team from starting over. Cul-de-sacs, townhouse complexes and courts should be grouped logically. Large apartment buildings should usually be treated as their own canvassing assignments.

Build a Simple Tracking System- Campaign technology can be sophisticated, but the underlying information does not need to be complicated. For every canvassing area, the campaign should be able to record:
 the date canvassed;

•  the streets and address ranges completed;
•  the candidate or volunteers who covered the area;
•  the number of doors attempted;
•  residents who requested follow-up;
•  significant local issues raised;
•  areas that need to be revisited.

Individual voter information should be handled carefully and in accordance with applicable privacy and election rules. The purpose of the system is not to create unnecessary dossiers on residents. It is to ensure that legitimate campaign interactions and commitments do not disappear into someone's notebook.

Whether the campaign uses specialized software, a shared spreadsheet or printed walk sheets, consistency matters more than complexity. For those who are technically inclined, the voter extract provided by the city to registered candidates, if received in electronic form, can be massaged into a powerful spreadsheet.  Everyone must use the same system.

Record the Difference Between a Knock and a Conversation- A street is not necessarily "canvassed" simply because someone walked down it. Campaigns should distinguish between doors that were attempted and residents who were actually reached.

A simple system might record a door as:

• Contact made — Someone answered and a conversation occurred.
• No answer — The campaign attempted the door but reached no one.
• Follow-up requested — The resident asked for information or raised an issue requiring a response.
• Revisit — There is a legitimate reason for the campaign to return.

This distinction becomes increasingly important as election day approaches. If a candidate has limited time for a second pass through the ward, it is far more useful to know where hundreds of residents were never reached than simply to know that a neighbourhood was technically "completed."

Capture Issues by Neighbourhood- Canvassing is not only about introducing the candidate. It is one of the best forms of political intelligence available to a campaign. Patterns emerge at the doors. One neighbourhood may repeatedly raise speeding. Another may be concerned about development. Residents elsewhere may talk about transit, taxes, infrastructure, public safety or the condition of a local park. Those patterns should be tracked.

After every canvassing session, someone should record the major issues that arose. Over time, the campaign will develop an increasingly detailed understanding of what matters in different parts of the ward. That information should influence where the candidate returns, what questions the campaign researches and how the candidate communicates with residents. The best canvassing operation does not simply deliver the campaign's message. It brings information back.

Have a System for Follow-Up- One of the fastest ways for a candidate to damage credibility is to tell a resident, "I'll get back to you," and then forget. Every commitment made at a door should enter a centralized follow-up list. Record enough information to identify the request, assign responsibility for responding and mark the matter complete once the resident has received an answer. If a candidate does not know the answer to a question, there is nothing wrong with saying so. In fact, a thoughtful follow-up can be more impressive than an improvised answer. But the follow-up must happen. A campaign that reliably responds to residents distinguishes itself very quickly.

Brief the Team Before Every Canvass- Volunteers should never be dropped into a neighbourhood with nothing more than a stack of literature. Before heading out, everyone should know the boundaries of the assigned area, where to start, where to finish, how information is being recorded and what to do when a resident asks for follow-up. Teams should also have a clear meeting point and a check-in procedure. At the end of the canvass, the campaign should reconcile the routes. What was completed? What was missed? Where did the team stop? Were there access problems? Did any significant issues arise? Five minutes of disciplined debriefing can save hours later.

Plan for the Second Pass- The first canvass introduces the candidate and begins the conversation. A second pass can be much more strategic. As election day approaches, the campaign can return to areas where contact rates were low, neighbourhoods where significant issues emerged and doors where residents specifically requested another conversation.

This is why accurate tracking from the beginning matters. A campaign that has maintained good records can make intelligent decisions about where the candidate's remaining hours will have the greatest value. A campaign that has not may simply start knocking randomly again.

The Candidate's Time Is the Campaign's Scarcest Resource-

Every campaign eventually discovers the same reality: there are more doors than there are hours. The candidate should therefore spend as much time as possible doing the one thing volunteers cannot do on their behalf — meeting voters as the candidate.

Volunteers can prepare routes, carry literature, record information, place signs, update spreadsheets and organize follow-ups. A well-run canvassing team allows the candidate to move efficiently from conversation to conversation while the operation around them captures what happened. The goal should never be to rush residents. Some of the most valuable conversations will take time. Efficiency comes from eliminating the wasted minutes between doors, not from shortening meaningful conversations at them.

Know Where You Stand — Geographically- At any point in a serious campaign, the team should be able to pull up a map or tracking sheet and immediately identify what has been covered and what remains. There should be no guessing.

The strongest canvassing systems are often surprisingly simple. Divide the ward. Assign the territory. Track every route. Record where you stopped. Capture what residents are saying. Follow up when you promise to do so. Then use that information to decide where to go next.

A clipboard can work. A spreadsheet can work. Sophisticated campaign software can work. What does not work is relying on memory.

Candidates who canvass well do more than knock on thousands of doors. They gradually build a living map of their community — street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood and conversation by conversation. And in a municipal election, where a handful of votes on each street can ultimately make the difference, knowing where you have been is almost as important as knowing where you are going.

At The Hamiltonian, we want you to succeed! For the complete series on Before the Ballot-Candidate’s Edition, click here.

Hamilton Has Had Enough Politicians. Will a Leader Please Step Forward?

There is still time. There is still time for one of Hamilton’s mayoral candidates to emerge as something more than a candidate, more than a campaign, and more than a politician. There is still time to become a leader.

Hamilton has had its share of politicians. What it needs now is leadership.

As an interesting thought exercise, consider the types of mayoral candidates that invariably emerge during a municipal election. Then look at the current field and ask yourself: Who fits where? If you find yourself assigning a candidate to one—or perhaps several—of the categories below, you may be inclined to temporarily remove that person from your leadership list.

Temporarily is the important word. None of these categories means that a candidate cannot become an excellent mayor or a genuine leader. It simply means that, at this point in the campaign, they may not have demonstrated it yet.

And there is still time.

The Classic

The Classic Candidate lives inside the campaign. The website is polished. The messaging is carefully managed. The appearances are planned. The policy releases arrive according to schedule. Everything has its time and place, and the expectation is that Hamiltonians—and sometimes the media—will march according to the campaign's timeline.

Questions that fit the plan are welcomed. Questions that do not can become inconvenient. The Classic may be reluctant to respond to difficult media questions, particularly when the issue was not anticipated by the campaign team. Requests for positions on emerging matters can be deflected, delayed or left unanswered because responding would mean stepping outside the carefully constructed strategy.

The greatest danger for the Classic is the campaign bubble. Every successful campaign needs trusted advisers. But campaigns can become echo chambers in which everyone is looking at the same polling, hearing the same feedback and reinforcing the same assumptions.

Blind spots that may be obvious to those outside the campaign can become almost invisible to those inside it. A leader must sometimes be willing to walk out of the campaign room.

The Machinist

The Machinist understands how elections work. This candidate understands a fundamental reality that is sometimes obscured by rallies, endorsements, social media impressions and enthusiastic crowds: ultimately, you must get your voters to the ballot box.

You can hold every event imaginable. You can collect endorsements. You can dominate social media. You can speak before packed rooms. But if you cannot identify your vote and pull it on election day, you lose. The Machinist understands organization, targeting and electoral mathematics. This type of candidate can sometimes produce a result that surprises political observers.

A Machinist who begins as a tactical disruptor can develop into a serious contender. Alternatively, the candidate can become a significant vote splitter whose presence changes the outcome without ever winning the office.

Never underestimate someone who understands the machinery. But machinery alone is not leadership.

The Name

The Name understands the considerable value of recognition. That recognition may come from previously holding elected office, years of involvement in Hamilton politics, a prominent role in the community, a career in radio or television, or any number of other avenues that make a candidate familiar before the campaign even begins.

If The Name is an incumbent, the advantages can be even greater. Unlike lesser-known candidates who must urgently introduce themselves to voters, The Name can afford to move more cautiously. There is less pressure to be everywhere immediately because the public already knows who they are—or, perhaps more accurately, believes it knows who they are.

The risk is confusing familiarity with support. Name recognition gets a candidate into the conversation. It does not necessarily win the argument.

The Optimist

The Optimist believes the traditional rules of campaigning are changing—and may believe they can win without following many of them. Rather than building the classic campaign infrastructure, The Optimist may rely heavily on social media, earned media, unconventional outreach and the power of an idea to catch fire.

Political observers often dismiss these candidates early. They may be labelled unserious because they lack the traditional machinery, money, organization or campaign polish associated with a serious contender. That dismissal may sometimes be justified. But not always and not here on The Hamiltonian.

The political landscape is changing. Social media has transformed how candidates communicate, how movements form and how quickly an unknown person can become widely known.

The Optimist's challenge is turning attention into organization, and enthusiasm into votes. Those who automatically count such candidates out may be relying on yesterday's political rulebook.

The Perennial

The Perennial keeps coming back. Election after election, the candidate remains undeterred by previous results and convinced that their ideas—and perhaps they themselves—are what the city needs.

There can be something admirable about persistence. There can also be a point at which persistence becomes disconnected from political reality.

The question for voters is whether The Perennial has grown, learned and evolved between campaigns—or is simply running the same race again while expecting a different result.

The Low Profile

Then there is The Low Profile. Comparatively speaking, this candidate barely seems to be campaigning at all. There may be no polished website, few public statements, limited media coverage and little meaningful social media presence. The candidacy itself can become something of a mystery.

Perhaps there is a strategy yet to emerge. Perhaps there is an organization quietly being built. Perhaps the candidate simply registered. In politics, mystery can create curiosity. But eventually, anyone asking Hamiltonians to entrust them with the mayor's office must tell Hamiltonians who they are, what they believe and what they intend to do. Silence is not a platform.

Now, Match the Candidate

As of this writing, Hamilton's registered mayoral candidates, alphabetically by surname, are:

Sasha Austin
Ejaz Butt
Rob Cooper
Paul Fromm
Scarlett Gillespie
Keanin Loomis
Pamela Mitchell
Nathalie Xian Yi Yan

Now comes the exercise. Match the candidates with the types.

There does not need to be a perfect fit. Categories can overlap. A candidate might be part Classic and part Machinist. Another might combine The Name with The Low Profile. The point is not to force every candidate neatly into a box.

The point is to think critically about what we are actually watching. Are we watching campaigns? Are we watching political strategies? Or are we watching leaders emerge?

There is a difference. The good news is that this election is far from finished. A leader can still emerge. That may happen because an existing candidate changes course, becomes bolder, steps outside the campaign machinery and begins demonstrating something Hamiltonians have not yet seen.

Or someone new may still enter the race. Either way, leadership is recognizable when it appears.

Clues: 

A leader is not beholden to the campaign bubble. Good advisers matter, but a leader knows when to step outside the strategy and act on conviction.

A leader accepts debate, participates in debates—and initiates them. Leaders are not frightened by competing ideas. They are willing to explain what they believe, defend their positions and allow those positions to be tested.

A leader can be wrong. More importantly, a leader can say, "I was wrong." They own mistakes, explain them and learn from them rather than performing verbal gymnastics to make the mistake disappear.

A leader understands Hamilton—not because a campaign consultant recently instructed them to begin "listening," but because they have been listening all along. They know what Hamiltonians are talking about. They pay attention to neighbourhood conversations. They follow community groups and public debates. They understand what is being discussed in The Hamiltonian, The Hamilton Spectator, The Public Record, Facebook groups, X and elsewhere.

They do not need a focus group to tell them that an issue matters.They already know.

A leader also possesses a certain constructive aggression—not hostility, not belligerence, but fire. It is the quality that says: This matters to me, and I am prepared to fight for it.

A leader has courage and is prepared to do what they believe is right, even when doing so may be unpopular.

A leader has integrity. The person the public sees is fundamentally the same person who exists when the cameras are gone.

A leader is authentic. Every sentence does not require a script, a communications adviser or three rounds of political vetting.

A leader has vision. Politicians can become consumed by the next election. Leaders must be capable of seeing beyond it—to the Hamilton that will exist five, ten and twenty years from now.

And perhaps most importantly, a leader understands that leadership is not something conferred by winning an election. An election gives someone an office. It does not automatically make them a leader.

Hamiltonians should watch carefully over the coming months. Watch who answers difficult questions and who avoids them. Watch who debates and who hides behind strategy. Watch who changes their mind when the evidence demands it and who changes their position when the polling demands it. Watch who understands Hamilton and who appears to be learning about it from a campaign briefing book.

The mayoral race is still young enough for candidates to surprise us. Someone can still rise above the machinery, the messaging, the caution and the choreography.

Hamilton has had enough politicians. Let's see if we elect a leader.

If you are a candidate, you may want to proceed through this thought exercise yourself. To those who fit into the categories and are unwilling to lead, we will end with a line from a Shania Twain classic “That don’t impress me much!”

The Hamiltonian

The Loomis Launch: Energy, Optimism and One Complicated Electoral Equation

To an audience of roughly 150 to 200 enthusiastic supporters, Keanin Loomis officially launched his campaign for mayor at Ringside Hamilton.

Opening the event was Terry Cooke, no stranger to Hamilton politics, having served on Hamilton City Council before becoming Chair of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth from 1994 to 2000.

Cooke spoke confidently about his belief that Loomis is the right choice to become Hamilton's next mayor. His "big reveal," as he described it, was the result of polling commissioned by the Loomis campaign. According to the results presented by Cooke, Loomis holds a comfortable lead, with Andrea Horwath in second place and Rob Cooper in third. No other candidates were mentioned in the presentation.

Cooke was followed by Loomis's spouse, Trish, who offered a more personal perspective. She spoke about what it was like for the family to come so close in the last mayoral election and about the journey that ultimately led Loomis to decide to run again. She was warmly received.

Keanin then took the stage, delivering a roughly 15-to-20-minute speech intended both to energize those in the room and to begin making his case to the broader electorate.

He said the formal "listening" phase of his campaign has concluded and that he will soon release what he described as a "smart" plan for Hamilton. Loomis indicated that the plan will address issues including homelessness, roads and attracting new investment, among other priorities.

Loomis also highlighted the experience he has gained since the last municipal election, speaking particularly warmly about his advocacy work on behalf of Hamilton's steel industry. He reflected candidly on losing the 2022 mayoral election by approximately 1,600 votes and

With Slate Asset Management- On A.I. Data Centres in Hamilton

The following is an interview conducted by The Hamiltonian with Slate Asset Management on the topic of A.I. data centres.

Before reading the interview, it is important to understand the context in which our questions were posed. That context was communicated to Slate Asset Management in advance and is encapsulated in the following statement we provided to them:

 

Before presenting our questions, we wish to acknowledge that we understand you cannot make legally binding or contractual commitments through a media interview, nor is that our expectation. Instead, we are seeking to better understand whether there are principles, commitments, or approaches that Steelport would be prepared to explore in order to build public confidence and identify common ground.

Here is the interview: 

 

You have stated that data centres are only one possible use for Steelport. If a data centre were ultimately approved, would Steelport support a model whereby at least 75% of the commercial services provided by that facility—including cloud hosting, AI processing, colocation, and enterprise services—are delivered from the Hamilton facility, rather than the site functioning primarily as infrastructure supporting operations elsewhere?

Our role as landowner is to prepare this site for world-class tenants, not to operate individual facilities ourselves. The commercial and operational decisions about how services are delivered from any future facility will be made by the companies and organizations who ultimately locate here, and we are not in a position to make commitments on their behalf through a planning process.

What we can say is that Steelport's vision has always been about building genuine economic activity in Hamilton, not creating pass-through infrastructure. The scale of investment we are making in this site, from remediation to servicing to long-term community engagement, reflects a long-term commitment to Hamilton as a place. We will continue to seek tenants whose operations match that vision.

Data centres require significant municipal infrastructure and electrical capacity. Would Steelport be prepared to explore a Community Benefits Agreement or similar mechanism that

Candidates Who Won’t Answer Questions Are Telling Voters Something

Election campaigns are carefully managed exercises. Websites are polished. Media releases are vetted. Social media posts are edited and scheduled. Speeches are rehearsed. Every word can be tested, refined and delivered in an environment where the candidate controls the message. But democracy is not supposed to be a controlled environment.

The real test of a candidate is not what they say when they choose the question, write the script and control the microphone. It is what they do when someone else asks a fair question and expects an answer. Increasingly, some candidates appear unwilling to take that test.

They will issue statements. They will direct voters to their websites. They will deliver speeches. They will post videos and campaign material. Yet when legitimate questions arrive from independent media, they go silent.

That is not communications strategy. It is political cowardice.

Candidates asking Hamiltonians for the authority to make decisions about hundreds of millions of public dollars, taxation, housing, policing, development and the future direction of this city should have enough confidence in their own convictions to answer reasonable questions.

A candidate who communicates only when the conditions are controlled is not necessarily demonstrating discipline. They may be demonstrating calculation: determining which questions are politically advantageous, which audiences are useful and which answers carry the least electoral risk. That is campaigning by calculation rather than candour. Is that who we want in government?

An unpopular position honestly defended tells voters more about a candidate than a dozen carefully crafted slogans. Candidates should also understand something else: refusing to answer is itself an answer.

It tells voters how a candidate may behave once elected. If someone will not engage with independent questions while actively seeking your vote, when they are theoretically at their most accessible, what reason is there to believe they will become more accountable once they have secured four years in office?

At The Hamiltonian, we encounter candidates who truly step up—candidates who are unafraid to state their views and who appreciate the opportunity to answer fair questions openly and

Candidates Talk A.I.

The Hamiltonian recently reached out to all candidates currently registered on the City of Hamilton’s website who have provided a public email address.

We posed simple, open-ended questions:

Hamiltonians want to know what you think about A.I. Is Hamilton handling the issue the right way? What are your thoughts on the recent vote at City Council and the broader debate surrounding A.I. in Hamilton?

Our intention is straightforward: to give candidates an opportunity to share their views, in their own words, on the role of artificial intelligence in Hamilton and how the City is approaching this rapidly evolving issue. There are no prescribed positions and no right or wrong answers. We want to hear what candidates think. Responses will be added as they are received and presented in alphabetical order by the candidates’ last names.

Austin, Sasha- Mayoral Candidate 

I am strongly opposed to any steps forwards on a approval of the Steel Port AI Data Centres. My opposition towards a Artificial Intelligence Data Centre will never change. There is no positive impacts that the Steelport AI Data Centre will bring to our city or citizens. It will in fact cause immeasurable destruction.

Daly, Mark- Councillor Candidate Ward 7

I’ve knocked on hundreds of doors this summer, and people raise this frequently alongside roads, taxes, and accountability.

Artificial intelligence and data centres are a new technology and a new industry, and Hamilton should be open to investment and the jobs that come with it.

At the same time, I would oppose any project that increased electricity costs, created noise problems, harmed our environment, or negatively affected Hamilton residents. People have legitimate questions about power use, water use, and the impact on our community, and those concerns deserve clear answers.

It is also clear that the legal advice provided to council yesterday changed the minds of several councillors. From the outside, it appears that municipal authority in this area may be limited.

My position is straightforward: if these projects can proceed without harming residents and with appropriate safeguards in place, Hamilton should welcome the investment and economic opportunities they bring. My priority will always be protecting the interests of the people of Hamilton.

Christopher De Melo, Councillor Candidate Ward 3

my thoughts on A.I are that it is a piece of technology that is being sold to us as the tool to potentially fix all of our current problems. It's being touted as the future and that we must embrace is. It is being communicated by government and corporations as the most important piece of technology we need to invest in. And it feel like all of this information is being sold to us by people who claim to be much smarter people than me. 

Behind the buzzwords and media rhetoric the benefits of AI is not in dispute. It is good at two things: complex pattern recognition and turning huge amounts of complicated information into something easier to understand.

​When applied to physical, scientific, and operational problems, this capability translates into possible breakthroughs that save lives, reduce waste, and solve real-world logistical bottlenecks.

• Tools like AlphaFold solved a 50-year-old biological mystery by predicting the 3D shapes of over 200 million proteins. This allows scientists to design targeted molecules to block disease pathways. Such as recent breakthroughs in mapping hidden Alzheimer's triggers or targeting drug-resistant tuberculosis in weeks rather than decades. - https://www.wired.com/story/alphafold-changed-science-after-5-years-its-still-evolving/
• In India, Precision Agriculture: Rather than blanket-spraying fields with pesticides or water, smart tractors equipped with computer vision identify and target individual weeds or dry patches of soil. This reduces pesticide runoff and water usage by up to 40%. - https://frontline.thehindu.com/society/india-ai-sovereignty-compute-data-and-governance/article71103889.ece

My issue with the way Hamilton is handing A.I Data Centres in particular is how every attempt to place them in the city core is being done in a non-direct way - and it almost feels deceptive.

Whether it is the attempts to sever the land, the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, or the closed-door council discussions about AI data centres, the process has felt indirect and secretive. That lack of transparency makes it difficult for Hamilton residents to trust the organizations supporting these developments. 

Treating Hamiltonians with transparency, respect, and honesty will build trust with residents - but at this point it feel like only bad feelings, and bad vibes.

That being said - my thoughts on the current vote in council killing the moritorium on AI Data Centres is complicated. Having a closed door session does not bode well for trust and transparency, something that in recent days - feels lacking at city hall. My thoughts go to the councillors that voted to kill the moritorium because of an apparent lawsuit the city would open itself up to if they decided to approve it. If that is the case then I hope that those specific councillors and mayor implement some checks and balances that could address the massive environmental impact of these centres. Because, at this point, I see no way of stopping the development with the moritorium defeated.

Residents can curb data center expansion by targeting the municipal planning and regulatory process. This means actively supporting the city's legal defense of zoning and land severance denials such as the fight over the massive Steelport lands when developers appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Simultaneously, community members can lobby council to pass protective municipal performance bylaws.

By enacting strict local limits on continuous fan noise, prohibiting the use of municipal drinking water for cooling, and requiring developers to build needed waste-heat capture systems, the city can make environmental compliance at the core of the project. 

Concurrently, advocacy can also include provincial utility allocations and direct negotiation. Because these massive facilities require enormous amounts of electricity, residents can pressure the province and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to prioritize grid capacity for housing and traditional manufacturing over data centers. At the local level, demanding legally binding Community Benefit Agreements forces developers to provide massive financial offsets, local infrastructure funding, and environmental safeguards. 

Currently - it feels as though the desire of industry and city council to put this data centre in the city limits is steamrolling any concerns for environmental or health impacts. It also feels as though for many residents - especially those living in the riding where the proposed data centre will go are being summarily ignored - or dismissed as anti-progress. 

Let me make it clear - I am not anti AI - or anti Data Centre - but I do think it’s fair to ask questions about whether we are prioritizing financial gain over the well-being of residents of the city. In downtown Hamilton we already deal with environmental concerns as we spend another summer fighting black soot raining on us. Just because a data centre is better than a steel mill shouldn’t be a good enough reason to plop a new problem in the city because it’s better than the old one. 

Floyd, Seth- School Board Trustee Ward 7 Public

What I think about AI is complex, because it is a broader term than many realize. It needs to be made clear that not all AI is the same, and there are some merits to AI usage in the STEM disciplines. For example, predictive AI is being used in the development of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for medical research, intending to reduce or eliminate the need for animal models. That is an example of harm reduction that I believe everyone can get behind. However, that is not the AI that most people are referring to when it is brought up in discussion. I also believe it is not the AI usage being referred to by the corporations when they sell us the promise of some inevitable future which requires AI-dedicated data centers at massive scaling. The AI being thrust upon us is generative AI, or what I refer to as consumer AI. This AI usage is energy intensive, requiring massive centers which have the potential to cause numerous environmental harms that the public has openly denounced. The end-product are primarily fabricated imagery, text summaries, and chat bots. All things we do not need. This is not even mentioning the potential malicious uses of generative AI, such as spreading misinformation, impersonating people without their consent, and replacing jobs (especially those that require human elements of empathy and creativity).

The public has made their opinion very clear, that they are against AI-specific data centers. I have made my opinion clear as well, as evidenced by public delegations (albeit, it is hard to cover such a complex topic within a time limit). In short: regulated AI use, restricted primarily to medical research, is something I would support in most cases so long as there is justification. Consumer AI is something I am firmly against.

This brings us to the Hamilton perspective specifically, and whether it is being handled the "right way". The recent vote at council was disappointing to say the least. On June 16th, the moratorium for AI-data centers, including establishing a by-law, passed without amendments. If there was concern about the ICBL, it should have been raised and potentially amended at this point but it was not. Then a last-minute surprise special meeting, comprised of only individuals who would benefit from AI-specific data centers, including a registered lobbyist for one of the developments in Hamilton (DRAC / Steelport), was held July 15th, the day before the vote on the ICBL. This "education meeting" did not include any environmental experts, HVAC experts, nor experts on the potential malicious uses of AI. I would hardly consider that a well-rounded education on the subject. Then during the council meeting right before the vote, the closed portion was held for 3 hours right before the vote, and suddenly numerous councillors who had voted in favour of the moratorium which included the ICBL changed to opposed. Again, I believe the vote could have been deferred in light of the supposed new information, in order to amend the ICBL accordingly, but it was not. No supposed concerns were raised till it was too late; councillors simply threw their hands up and said their hands were tied.

The voices of the Hamilton residents were effectively cast aside by this vote. Which is absurd when you stop and think: the ICBL was only a temporary pause on AI data centers, not a permanent ban. I think developers and decision-makers acting in good faith do not fear reasonable questions and careful review. In fact, they advocate for it.

Werhun, Peter-- Councillor candidate- Ward 6

I have an MSc in chemistry and did my undergrad in chemistry at McMaster. I love science and innovation (and McMaster) and want it to flourish. I am not against progress. But I am against unregulated development - and what has been proposed in Hamilton is similar to what the state of New York made official just last week.

We have a right to have a debate in Hamilton about the costs and benefits of proposals and to have a framework in place for assessing those, without being talked down to by Laurentian elites. Somehow, when it comes to a maximum heat by-laws, we need years of study. But one year is too much to ask for when it comes to large scale AI data centers.

The federal government can't stop Canfor from shutting down mills, or defence companies from relocating overseas, but meanwhile Hamilton is the roadblock to Canada's economic future? Canada lost more good, union jobs this week than an AI data center would produce in its lifetime.

The Special Council meeting was hamfisted and counterproductive. It was not an attempt to work through issues, it was an attempt to patronize Hamiltonians into acquiescence by treating us like luddite rubes. I can certainly appreciate experts coming to give their views, but I am deeply disappointed by the way that the process has evolved.

The interim control by-law was certainly imperfect, but it represented a response to real concerns of Hamiltonians that were not assuaged, but dismissed. I believe that if we are going to build a Hamilton of the future, we should expect better, more informed decision-making that brings people to the table on these kinds of decisions rather than talking down to them.

A last-minute suggestion that members of Council (and the Mayor) actually had no idea what they were talking about and needed to be "educated", a legal opinion that from the sound of it boxed Council in with conclusions rather than providing strategies and solutions, and a sudden about face after a closed-door session were all unforced errors of governance. As a Hamiltonian sitting in the gallery of the Council Chamber, only one word describes how I felt watching my City government struggling to get through the day: humiliated. And that is a feeling that we feel far too often and have felt for far too long in one of Canada's largest and most important cities.

I cannot blame people for feeling there was a bait-and-switch, and that failure of leadership falls on Council and the Mayor.

Before the Ballot with Olivia “Moy” Fung, Councillor Candidate for Hamilton City Council – Ward 10

Enjoy this instalment of Before the Ballot with Olivia “Moy” Fung, Councillor Candidate for Hamilton City Council – Ward 10.

What motivated you to run for City Council in this election?

For nearly two decades, I have served individuals, families, business owners, organizations, and communities through community-based programs, social enterprise, and nonprofit work.

My decision to run for City Council comes from a genuine desire to serve the community where I live and to use the experience and skills I have developed to make a meaningful contribution.

I am a people-centred leader, so my work always begins with listening to people and understanding what is affecting their everyday lives. Local government gives me the opportunity to remain close to residents, carry their concerns to City Hall, and work toward practical solutions.

Advocating for people, bringing people together, and addressing barriers that affect their quality of life have been at the centre of my work for many years. Running for Council is a natural extension of that commitment.

What are your top 3 priorities if elected?

I am still listening to residents and learning more about the issues affecting Ward 10. I do not want to act as though I already have all the answers or decide what the community’s top priorities are without hearing from the people who live here.

However, three areas are beginning to stand out.

Responsible growth and infrastructure. New development must be supported by roads, drainage, transit, parks, public services, and meaningful consultation with residents.

Roads, traffic, and safe movement. Residents should be able to move through Ward 10 safely and efficiently, whether they are driving, walking, cycling, or using public transit.

Safe and well-maintained neighbourhoods. That includes timely bylaw enforcement, fire prevention, good lighting, accessible public spaces, and clean, well-maintained parks and neighbourhood areas.

These priorities are informed by early conversations with residents and my ongoing research. They will continue to be shaped by the people who live, work, and raise their families in Stoney Creek, Fruitland, and Winona.

Can you describe a time when you had to make a tough decision and how you handled it?

A few years ago, I made the difficult decision to pause a transitional housing program I had created for young people experiencing mental health challenges, addiction, housing instability, and the transition out of the child welfare system.

The home had become a safe and supportive community for the residents, so the decision was heartbreaking. However, without stable government funding, I had reached the limit of what I could responsibly sustain through my own resources.

I had to be honest that continuing without adequate funding, staffing, and supports could eventually compromise the quality and safety of the program. I chose to pause it rather than make promises I could no longer responsibly keep.

Throughout the transition, I worked with the residents to identify referrals, alternative housing, and other available supports so they were not left to navigate the change alone.

That experience taught me that leadership is not only about starting important work. It is also about making difficult decisions with care, planning responsibly, and taking responsibility for the people affected.

What distinguishes you from other candidates in your ward?

What distinguishes me is the combination of practical leadership experience and a genuine commitment to people.

I have spent years building organizations, developing partnerships, leading teams, creating programs, and helping move ideas into action. That experience has taught me how to bring people together, follow through, and stay focused on the people affected by the decisions being made.

Beyond my experience, I care deeply about whether people feel heard, respected, and included. My approach is to listen first, involve residents early, and keep them informed throughout the process

I want to be a councillor who is present, accessible, and connected to the everyday realities of Ward 10. My goal is to keep people at the centre of the work and to advocate for infrastructure, services, and neighbourhood planning that allow residents to live and age with safety, dignity, and a strong quality of life.

That is the different approach I hope to bring to City Hall.

How can residents reach you or get involved in your campaign?

Residents can reach me at oliviafungward10@gmail.com or through my website at oliviafung.ca.

I will also be out in the community throughout the summer and fall, meeting residents, attending local events, and continuing to listen.

I welcome conversations, ideas, and anyone who would like to volunteer or get involved. This campaign is about the people of Ward 10, and I want residents to feel part of the process.

Thank you for the opportunity to share more about why I am running and the kind of service I hope to bring to the community.

Thank-you Olivia for engaging with Hamiltonians on The Hamiltonian!

Hamilton Council Rejects Interim Control Bylaw on New AI Data Centres

Hamilton City Council has rejected an attempt to temporarily halt new artificial intelligence data centre development while the City considers how such facilities should be regulated.

An Interim Control Bylaw moved by Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann was defeated Wednesday by a vote of 10-6. The proposed bylaw would have controlled the use of land, buildings and structures for new artificial intelligence data centres within Hamilton's industrial zones. Data centres are already restricted to industrially zoned lands and are not permitted on commercial or residential properties.

Voting in favour of the interim control bylaw were Councillors Cameron Kroetsch, Nrinder Nann, Matt Francis, Tom Jackson, Esther Pauls and Alex Wilson. Mayor Andrea Horwath and Councillors Maureen Wilson, Tammy Hwang, Rob Cooper, Brad Clark, Jeff Beattie, Mark Tadeson, Craig Cassar, Mike Spadafora and Ted McMeekin voted against it. The 10-6 vote means Hamilton will not impose a temporary city-wide planning freeze specifically targeting new AI data centres.

The decision comes amid an increasingly heated debate over whether Hamilton should embrace data centre investment or exercise greater caution because of concerns surrounding electricity and water consumption, land use, environmental impacts and the potential demands these facilities could place on local infrastructure. Those questions have taken on particular significance as Hamilton considers the future of its industrial lands and the potential arrival of large-scale data centre developments.

The defeat of the interim control bylaw, however, should not be confused with Council giving blanket approval to any particular data centre proposal. Individual developments remain subject to whatever planning, zoning, servicing and regulatory requirements apply to them. What Wednesday's vote does reveal is a significant philosophical divide around the Council table. Six members were prepared to temporarily restrict new AI data centre development while Hamilton examines the issue. Ten were not.

An interim control bylaw is an extraordinary planning instrument. It can effectively put development on hold while a municipality studies an emerging land-use issue and determines whether new rules are required. Supporters can argue that a temporary pause provides breathing room before potentially consequential developments proceed. Opponents can reasonably argue that municipalities should not freeze otherwise lawful development without compelling evidence that existing planning controls are inadequate.

Hamiltonians should therefore be careful about reducing this vote to a simple question of who is "for" or "against" AI. The more important question is what comes next. If Council believes an interim freeze was unnecessary, the public is entitled to know what safeguards Council believes are sufficient instead. How will Hamilton evaluate the cumulative electricity demands of multiple data centres? What are the implications for water consumption and infrastructure? What standards will govern noise, backup generation and environmental impacts? How will Council determine whether these developments produce economic benefits proportionate to the resources and industrial land they consume?

And perhaps most importantly: will Hamilton establish a clear policy framework before major applications arrive, or develop that framework while applications are already moving through the system?

Council has decided against pressing the pause button. Now the responsibility falls on those who voted against the interim control bylaw to demonstrate that Hamilton can proceed without one — and that the City will be ready for what may be coming.