Colleen James

Please describe one concrete policy, program, or decision you would support to address both encampments and permanent housing.candidate's own words

I would support a coordinated approach that expands permanent, deeply affordable and supportive housing while maintaining adequate shelter and outreach capacity. At the same time, we need to see what the courts ultimately rule regarding encampments and ensure our response is consistent with that decision. Practically, that means using publicly owned land where possible, accelerating approvals for supportive and deeply affordable housing, and strengthening outreach, mental health and addiction supports so people have a realistic pathway from encampments to permanent housing. We also need clear expectations around safety, sanitation and access to public spaces. The goal should be neither simply moving people from one location to another nor waiting for a perfect solution. We need to increase housing supply, provide appropriate supports, and make practical decisions based on the legal framework established by the courts

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on housing?candidate's own words

Stated above

• Reallocate space on selected streets (e.g. road diets, transit lanes, protected bike lanes)
• Prioritize active transportation improvements during routine resurfacing
• Focus improvements around schools, transit corridors, and commercial areas

Yes, sidewalks should be cleared alongside roads as part of regular winter maintenance

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on transportation?candidate's own words

I believe public transportation is an essential public service and affordability should not be a barrier to accessing it. As Regional Councillor, I have focused on practical ways to improve transit access and affordability for residents who rely on public transportation. I supported free transit for children six and under, supported the GRT Night Loop to maintain access to transit during late-night hours, and supported the Older Adult Day Pass pilot to make transit more accessible for seniors. I also advocated to ensure the Affordable Transit Pass remained at the same fare, protecting an important affordability measure for low-income residents. These actions reflect my broader view that transit policy must consider both the cost of the fare and the availability of service. I support targeted fare-free and reduced-fare programs where they can meaningfully improve access, while also ensuring that transit remains reliable, frequent and financially sustainable. Transit is not truly accessible if people cannot afford the fare or if the service they depend on is not available when they need it.

Please describe one criterion or principle that should not be compromised when making transit investment decisions.candidate's own words

As a Regional Councillor, I have advocated for transit decisions that recognize that not everyone has the same mobility options. One example is my support for the GRT Night Loop, which helps maintain access to transit outside traditional service hours for residents who work late shifts, attend evening programs or do not have access to a vehicle. I have also advocated for expanding the Veterans Transit Pass Program, recognizing that affordability can be a barrier to accessing transit. For me, transit investment is about more than ridership numbers. We need to consider who relies on a service, when they need it, and whether changes will leave people disconnected from employment, education, healthcare and community services. Operational sustainability is important, but equity must remain a fundamental consideration in deciding where and when we invest in transit.

Please name one specific street, corridor, or project where you would prioritize these changes.candidate's own words

I would prioritize suburban corridors and neighbourhood streets where rapid growth has increased traffic and where residents are concerned about speeding and pedestrian safety. Over the past four years, I have advocated for a more pedestrian-focused approach, including bringing forward the No Right on Red and Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) pilot to improve pedestrian visibility and safety at intersections. I would build on that work by prioritizing traffic calming in suburban communities with regional roads, particularly near schools, and transit stops and neighbourhood shopping areas. This could include speed management, safer crossings, LPIs, curb extensions and other street-design measures that encourage slower speeds. As our suburbs grow, we need to make sure our transportation infrastructure grows with them. Residents should not have to choose between living in a growing suburban neighbourhood and feeling safe walking or cycling in it.

Please describe one concrete policy, program, or decision you would support to strengthen the local food system.candidate's own words

I would support a partnership between the Region, municipalities, local farmers, post-secondary institutions and community organizations to strengthen local food production and distribution. This could include making appropriate public land available for community growing or new farmers, supporting local food hubs and markets, and creating opportunities for institutions to purchase more locally produced food. At the same time, strengthening our local food system requires protecting the agricultural land and rural areas that make local food production possible. As we plan for growth, we need to balance housing and economic development with the long-term protection of farmland, water resources and the countryside.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

Coordinate growth decisions with the level of government that has planning authority and ensure infrastructure capacity is realistically aligned before commitments are made. Regional Council should use the tools within its authority to understand the long-term infrastructure, water, transportation and service costs associated with growth. However, there are limitations to what the Region can control, particularly where provincial legislation and planning decisions determine the direction and scale of growth. Where the Region has authority, I would support evidence-based infrastructure and lifecycle cost analysis, clear phasing tied to available capacity, and prioritizing existing infrastructure where practical. Where decisions are made at another level of government, the Region should clearly identify the financial and infrastructure implications and advocate for the resources and coordination needed to support that growth. Growth should not be treated as simply a land-use decision. It needs to be matched with the infrastructure, water capacity and financial resources required to support complete and sustainable communities.

It should be more transparent and accessible

If you chose "It should be more transparent and accessible", please describe how.candidate's own words

I have made transparency and accessibility a priority in my own approach as a Regional Councillor, including communicating budget decisions, explaining the rationale behind them, and encouraging residents to participate in the process. I believe the Region has information available to the public, but the bigger challenge is often meaningful engagement. Budget documents can be technical and difficult for residents to navigate, and many people do not know when or how to provide input before decisions are made. I would support making the budget process easier to understand, with clearer public-facing information about major investments, trade-offs and potential impacts, and more proactive opportunities for residents to engage before decisions are finalized. Transparency is not simply making information public. It is making sure residents can understand it, access it and have a meaningful opportunity to shape decisions.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

Water is fundamental infrastructure, and we need to plan for both current needs and future growth. My approach has been to support a forward-looking water resiliency strategy rather than making short-term decisions that could leave future residents and communities vulnerable. That means continuing aggressive water conservation and demand management, while also evaluating alternative water sources and larger infrastructure options. At the same time, development approvals need to be tied to realistic water capacity, with a clear and transparent allocation framework. I also recognize that some solutions—particularly major new water infrastructure—are beyond the Region's ability to deliver alone and may require provincial and federal partnership. We should not simply approve growth and hope water supply catches up. We also should not close the door on growth when there are responsible solutions available. The priority should be building resiliency, protecting existing communities, and making evidence-based decisions about how and where we allocate our limited water resources.

Describe your position on how the Region should resolve this issue and what timeline is realistic.candidate's own words

The Region should take a phased, evidence-based approach to resolving the long-term water supply challenge. We need to address the immediate capacity constraints while simultaneously investing in conservation, demand management and the evaluation of additional water sources. I support establishing a clear water resiliency and allocation framework that identifies how much capacity is available, what level of resiliency we need to maintain, and how future development should be phased accordingly. This should include continued exploration of alternative sources and major infrastructure options, with independent technical and financial analysis before committing to significant capital investments. We also need to recognize that the Region cannot resolve every aspect of this issue on its own. Major water infrastructure may require provincial and federal approvals, funding and partnership, so we should be engaging those governments early rather than waiting until capacity becomes critical. A realistic timeline is immediate action on conservation and allocation, with a 1–2 year period to complete the technical work and establish the long-term strategy, followed by phased implementation of the preferred supply and infrastructure solutions over the next 5–10 years. The key is to avoid both extremes: we should not approve growth without a credible water plan, but we also should not assume that the only solution is to stop growth. We need to plan for resiliency, make responsible allocations and invest ahead of the crisis.