About this site

This is a citizen engagement site for residents of Mississauga, ahead of the October 26, 2026 municipal election. It is independent — not affiliated with the City, any candidate, or any campaign.

We don't endorse candidates, and we don't cover the campaign horse-race. What we do is track a deliberately narrow set of Core Issues — real, already-public matters that predate this campaign and that the next Mayor and Council will actually have the power to act on. For each one, we explain what's happening, where the real tension lies, and what's already been fact-checked — then turn it into a concrete question you can ask any candidate, in person or in writing.

We don't tell you what a good answer sounds like. Our job stops at the question — asked precisely enough that a vague reply is visibly a vague reply, and specific enough that a candidate can't answer it with a value they already share with everyone. What the answer is worth is yours to weigh. Two residents can read the same reply and reach opposite conclusions, both correctly, because they want different things from the same city. That judgement isn't ours to make, and nothing here is built to make it for you.

Why Core Issues, not every headline

An election generates a lot of noise — statements about statements, personality stories, disputes that don't touch any actual decision. We filter for developments tied to a real governance mechanism: a vote, a budget line, a permit, a construction milestone, a council motion. If it doesn't tie back to something a councillor or the Mayor can actually do something about, it doesn't make the list. The same test applies no matter which candidate a story helps or hurts.

How we stay accurate

Every issue on this site carries a visible confidence rating — confirmed against multiple independent sources, reported by a single outlet, or still thin and in need of a second source. We'd rather tell you what we don't yet know than overstate what we do. You can see the full fact-check ledger here.

How this stays current, and how it's actually made

We periodically re-check each Core Issue for genuine developments — a vote that happened, a timeline that moved, a new document filed — and log them, dated and sourced, in our Journal. We observe the public record; we never collect responses through a form here.

We count visits with Cloudflare Web Analytics, which, in Cloudflare's words, "does not collect or use your visitors' personal data."

Being straight about the method. Most of what you're reading was assembled by an AI assistant following a written scanning procedure, working from public records and news coverage. A person directs it and signs off on what gets added — but there is no independent reviewer, no editorial board, and no second pair of eyes checking each claim before it appears. We're not going to describe that as "human-curated", because the phrase would suggest a level of oversight that doesn't exist here.

So the reason to trust anything on this site isn't who checked it. It's that everything is traceable: each claim carries its sources, each is rated for how well-supported it is, and when we get something wrong we correct it in place and say so. We also publish where our information comes from — the standing list of sources a scan opens, and the ones we cannot read at all.

If something here looks wrong to you, tell us. That is currently the only external check this site has, which makes it worth more than it sounds.

What we're asking of candidates

Each Core Issue comes with a specific question, not a demand for a position on "growth" or "affordability" in the abstract. We're asking what mechanism a candidate would actually commit to — a consultation requirement, a published deadline, a transparent criterion — because a specific commitment is one you can hold someone to after election day.

We don't send these questions to candidates, and we don't chase replies. They're here so a resident or a reporter can ask them. What happens next is not something we control — and what we can see of what happens next has a limit worth stating plainly.

If a candidate answers in a news article, on their campaign website, or in the council record, we will almost certainly find it, date it and quote it. If they answer on Facebook or Instagram, we will almost certainly miss it. Those platforms answer our requests with a login wall or an empty page shell rather than the post — and one of them answers identically whether an account exists or not. About half the candidate links we publish point at them.

So a candidate who gets written about becomes visible here, and one who answers thoughtfully on social media may not. That is an unfairness our method produces, not one any candidate caused, and we would rather name it than let the gap read as silence. If you see an answer we've missed, tell us — that's the fastest way it gets recorded.

If you're a resident who wants to help — checking sources, reviewing journal entries, or just asking candidates the questions listed here — here is what would help most. The short version: you can read things we can't.