RESEARCH / ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Alvin Tedjo’s public record: six questions before election day

On schools, taxes, mayoral powers, the Living Arts Centre and data centres, his words and votes deserve scrutiny. Some show changes in emphasis. Others leave questions that the record alone cannot answer.

Mississauga Accountability and Transparency Coalition · Published 2026-10-20

Photo illustration · satire. Graphic supplied by the Mississauga Accountability and Transparency Coalition.

Public-record analysis and opinion

Values that hold.

Mississauga is a city of people with deep convictions. Families here hold on to their faith, their neighbourhoods and their institutions across generations.

Changing your mind is not a flaw. New facts, new responsibilities and honest reflection can all justify a new position. What residents deserve, especially from someone asking to lead the city, is a clear account of what changed and why.

We compared Alvin Tedjo’s public statements and votes on five issues. These records do not establish five outright policy reversals. They do provide a basis for questions before the October 26 election.

Catholic schools: a merger proposal and a later “Yes.”

On October 24, 2019, as an Ontario Liberal leadership candidate, Tedjo proposed merging Ontario’s public and Catholic school boards into English- and French-language systems. His campaign release described the existing arrangement as “wasting billions of dollars to keep children apart.” It proposed reinvesting savings in education and providing an optional religious curriculum. Read the original announcement.

He appeared in Humanist Canada’s 2021 webinar on a single school system for Ontario. In the recording, at about 41:15, he says he will keep fighting for the change, before presenting the case for merging the systems. Watch from 41:10. The recording was published March 2, 2021; the organizer’s event page is dated February 21. Read the event page.

On January 28, 2025, Tedjo appeared before the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board. The official minutes record his explanation that the earlier proposal arose during a funding crisis and sought to streamline boards and put more money in classrooms, rather than deny Catholic education. Asked whether he supports publicly funded Catholic education, he answered “Yes.” Read the minutes, PDF pages 7–8.

The minutes summarize the exchange. His 2019 release’s proposed reinvestment and optional religious curriculum are consistent with parts of his later explanation. The release does not describe a funding crisis, but that omission does not establish that there was none.

Supporting publicly funded Catholic education is not necessarily the same as supporting separate Catholic school boards. The sources reviewed here do not settle whether Tedjo still supports merging the boards. That is the question he should answer.

Taxes: opposing City recommendations, then supporting Peel’s budget.

On November 27, 2024, Tedjo voted against approving the recommendations in Mississauga’s Budget Committee Report 3 for the 2025 budget. The recommendations carried 7–4. That vote should be distinguished from final adoption of the City’s budget. Read the Council minutes, Resolution 0252-2024.

The following day, Peel Regional Council voted 12–11 to ask Peel police to reconsider its proposed 2025 budget. Tedjo was absent on other municipal business; Councillor Joe Horneck cast a supporting vote as his proxy. The vote was recorded in Tedjo’s name. Describing it as his vote is consistent with that record. Read the November 28 minutes, RCB-2024-34.

On January 23, 2025, Tedjo voted against deferring the police-budget motion to February 13; that proposal lost 10–14. He then opposed Mayor Carolyn Parrish and Councillor Brad Butt’s motion to cap the police increase at 18%; it lost 9–15. The motion described the proposed 23.3% increase as the largest in Peel’s history. Tedjo moved to defer the 2% police infrastructure levy for a year, then withdrew that motion. He voted for the regional budget, which carried 15–9. The final vote approved the whole regional budget, including police funding. Read the January 23 minutes, RCB-2025-20, -21 and -24.

He was one of three Mississauga members to support the regional budget, alongside Martin Reid and Sue McFadden. The City subsequently reported a 9.2% overall residential property-tax increase for 2025, including a 4.6-percentage-point impact from police funding. Read the City’s explanation.

The later record also matters. In December 2025, Tedjo moved a successful motion to fund required police-facility spending from existing reserves instead of collecting the Community Safety Levy for 2026. He also supported a successful reduction in the Region’s infrastructure levy. These were efforts to limit the immediate tax impact, although reserves are public funds too. Read the December 11 minutes, RCB-2025-94 and -97.

His current two-year freeze pledge covers the City of Mississauga’s share of residential property taxes. It would not itself freeze the regional portion that funds Peel police. Read his affordability platform.

His April 2026 “tax holiday” proposal concerned late-payment penalties and interest, not forgiveness of the tax owed. Council defeated the initial proposal, then approved a review of targeted relief for the 2027 budget by 11–0. Read the April 29 minutes, item 15.2.

City and regional budgets involve different services and trade-offs. Opposing one and supporting the other does not by itself establish a reversal. It does leave a fair question about why he rejected a smaller police increase and how he would manage regional costs as mayor.

Strong mayor powers: where is the boundary?

CBC reported in May 2024 that Tedjo preferred consensus but would consider strong mayor powers to advance housing and affordability, and might use them for his budget. Read CBC’s May 10 report.

The powers cover several functions. One permits certain by-laws connected to provincial priorities to pass with support from more than one-third of all council members. Budget powers have a separate process. Read the Province’s guide.

In October 2023, Tedjo’s fourplex motion failed on a tie. Mayor Bonnie Crombie’s October 20 directive then ordered staff to prepare amendments; it did not itself enact fourplex permissions. Read the directive. On December 6, Crombie moved adoption under the strong mayor provision, with Tedjo seconding. It passed 8–2, with two abstentions: a majority-supported decision. Read Resolution 0264-2023.

At the October 5, 2026 POLICORNER debate, candidates were asked whether they would use strong mayor powers to override a council majority. Tedjo held up a red X. Watch the question at 1:22:17.

That answer rejects an override; it does not necessarily reject every strong mayor power. The 2024 and 2026 questions were different. Voters deserve a precise statement of which powers he would use and which he would decline.

The Living Arts Centre: support for study was conditional.

On March 11, 2026, Council endorsed a downtown vision and strategic framework to guide further analysis, engagement and reporting. Tedjo voted yes; it carried 11–0, with one abstention. The minutes also record his comments about fiscal responsibility and funding partnerships. Read the minutes, Resolution 0047-2026.

Contemporaneous reporting adds important context: Tedjo raised concerns about finances, resident consultation and viability, and supported an unsuccessful amendment intended to protect taxpayers from convention-centre costs. Read The Pointer’s March 13 report.

On October 8, CityNews reported that he opposed proceeding with the proposed large redevelopment, wanted residents involved in deciding the site’s future, and was open to renovating the existing centre. Read CityNews.

Endorsing further study and later opposing a particular project can be consistent. This record does not establish that Tedjo first approved demolition and then reversed himself. The useful question is what he would retain, renovate or replace, and how he would fund it.

Data centres: opposition, a slogan and a moratorium.

On March 30, 2026, Tedjo joined an 11–0 committee vote referring Prologis’s Ward 9 data-centre application back to staff. It requested further work and a report after a satisfactory resubmission; it did not approve the project. Read PDC-0019-2026.

The Local reported that Tedjo was initially curious about data centres and wanted proper regulation. On June 26, the day after the Ward 9 town hall, he posted a video captioned “NO. NEW. DATA CENTRES.” The same report says he believed data centres needed to exist in some form but opposed the proposal without safeguards for residents. Read The Local’s September 14 report.

His campaign statement dated September 10 supports a moratorium on new hyperscale data centres until policies address energy capacity, environmental impacts, infrastructure costs and land-use priorities. It also describes data centres as part of the future. Read his statement.

The policy context has since changed: Council enacted an interim control by-law on September 16, temporarily prohibiting new large-scale facilities and qualifying conversions or expansions with peak electricity demand of at least 10 megawatts. The pause is for up to one year, subject to the applicable expiry and extension provisions. Read the City’s account.

The slogan sounds broader than the written policy. But opposing the present proposal and supporting a temporary moratorium are not necessarily contradictory. Voters should ask what conditions, if any, would make a future application acceptable.

Our view.

Opinion of the Mississauga Accountability and Transparency Coalition.

In our view, Tedjo owes voters clearer answers about how these statements and decisions fit together. His police-budget votes deserve explanation. His school-board position remains unresolved in the sources reviewed here. His position on mayoral powers needs a clear boundary, and his downtown and data-centre policies need concrete conditions.

Some of these records may reflect changing priorities; others may reflect consistent positions described differently. We should not present every difference as proof of a reversal or claim to know his motives. Accountability means asking specific questions and judging the answers against the record.

Six questions before election day.

1. Catholic schools. Do you still support merging Ontario’s public and Catholic school boards?
2. Your explanation. What funding circumstances informed the 2019 proposal, and how does your 2025 support for publicly funded Catholic education relate to the merger you proposed?
3. Taxes. Why did you oppose the January 2025 deferral and 18% police-budget cap, and what would you do about regional police costs while freezing the City portion of residential taxes?
4. Mayoral powers. Does your October 2026 answer rule out only overriding a council majority, or other strong mayor powers as well? Which would you use?
5. The Living Arts Centre. Which parts of the downtown vision would you retain, renovate or abandon, and what public funding would you support?
6. Data centres. When the pause ends, what conditions, if any, would lead you to support the Prologis proposal or another hyperscale data centre?

We invite Tedjo to clarify these positions. Residents deserve straight answers before they vote.

Return to the source.