Nathan Cadeau

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

I’d support a clear Region-wide standard that links any encampment enforcement to the actual availability of appropriate indoor shelter or housing. That needs to be paired with sustained provincial and federal funding for supportive and deeply affordable housing so people have a realistic path into permanent housing. The Region should coordinate the response, with municipalities handling the local responsibilities that fall within their authority.

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

I support a Housing First approach, but it needs to be properly championed and funded by the provincial and federal governments. The Region can coordinate local delivery, outreach and housing supports, while municipalities can help through planning, land-use decisions and management of public spaces. We need clear responsibility at each level of government and public reporting on whether people are actually moving into stable housing.

• Adjust signal timing, curb use, or intersection design
• Prioritize active transportation improvements during routine resurfacing
• Focus improvements around schools, transit corridors, and commercial areas

1. Prioritize maximizing operational efficiency
2. Prioritize expanding coverage area
3. Prioritize lower-cost or incremental transit improvements
4. Use transit to shape land use
5. Invest in rapid transit to anchor growth

No, maintain the current system where property owners clear adjacent sidewalks

Improve existing subsidies and discounts, but maintain fares for most riders

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

I support making transit more affordable for people who genuinely need the help, while keeping the system financially sustainable. I’d rather target subsidies to reduce barriers for lower-income residents, people with disabilities, and young people than shift the full cost of transit onto the general tax base. Transit also needs to work better for the townships, where service is still limited and people often have fewer practical options.

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

Value for money. Transit investments should respond to a clear service need, have realistic ridership expectations, and account for the full operating cost over time. Expansion needs to be financially sustainable and actually improve how people get around the Region.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

Improve connections between the townships and the urban transit network, especially for employment, education, and essential services

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

I’d prioritize closing gaps in Elmira’s walking and cycling network, especially the connections between residential neighbourhoods, schools, parks, trails, and the downtown. As roads are rebuilt or resurfaced, we should use those opportunities to add missing sidewalks, safer crossings, and practical cycling connections where they make sense. It’s a cost-effective way to improve how people move around Elmira without creating separate projects every time.

Describe one concrete policy, incentive, or decision you would prioritize to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Where possible, explain how it balances environmental goals with fiscal responsibility.candidate's own words

I’d require lifecycle cost and climate risk analysis for major municipal capital purchases, including vehicles, buildings and mechanical systems. We should look at the full cost of an asset over its useful life, including energy, fuel, maintenance and replacement costs. Where a lower-emission option also provides good long-term value, we should take it. That gives us a practical way to reduce emissions while protecting taxpayers from higher operating costs down the road.

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

I think municipal climate action should focus on the areas where we have real authority and can show clear results. In Woolwich, that includes protecting farmland and groundwater recharge, improving tree canopy, managing stormwater, reducing energy use in municipal facilities and making smarter capital decisions.

1. Develop a local food strategy, including research on how land-use change affects the food system
2. Promote and support low-barrier spaces for local producers to distribute and sell food
3. Partner with other levels of government to develop local food hubs that reduce costs and barriers for small businesses
4. Encourage and support local landowners to rent to newcomer farmers
5. Leave local food livelihoods to the private market

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

I’d protect Woolwich’s settlement boundary and countryside line so productive farmland stays in agriculture. Once that land is converted, we don’t get it back. Keeping a clear growth boundary protects the local food system, gives farmers more certainty, and helps direct growth toward areas where services and infrastructure already exist.

1. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
2. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
3. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
4. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
5. Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply

Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words

I’d support more housing and density within existing settlement areas where roads, water, wastewater and other services can support it. I’d also hold the line on unnecessary settlement boundary expansions into farmland. Growth should make better use of the infrastructure we already have and help pay for any new capacity it requires.

Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words

I’d oppose a settlement boundary expansion where the long-term cost of roads, water, wastewater and other services hasn’t been clearly accounted for. I’d rather direct growth toward serviced areas first and make sure new development pays its fair share of the infrastructure it requires.

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

Woolwich is going to grow, and we need to plan for it carefully. I want more housing within clear settlement boundaries, better use of existing infrastructure, and development that contributes fairly to the cost of growth. I also want us to protect productive farmland and look seriously at the long-term cost of every expansion decision. Growth decisions we make today can leave taxpayers maintaining infrastructure for decades.

What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words

Where land has development approvals and servicing capacity, I’d support using phased approvals and servicing agreements with clear construction timelines where the municipality has the legal authority to do so. We should also track how much approved land is sitting undeveloped so council can understand whether the problem is actually a shortage of approved land or a delay in getting that land built.

It should be more transparent and accessible

Please describe one concrete example of a trade-off you would support (or oppose) when costs rise faster than revenues.candidate's own words

I’d support delaying a lower-priority capital expansion before cutting maintenance on the roads, facilities and other infrastructure we already own. Every new asset comes with decades of operating, maintenance and replacement costs, so I want council looking at the full lifecycle cost before we build it. When money is tight, maintaining what we have and protecting core services should come first.

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

I don’t support setting an arbitrary tax cap and then working backwards from it. Municipal costs don’t move neatly with consumer inflation, and years of holding taxes artificially low can leave taxpayers with a much larger infrastructure bill later. I want every major spending decision put through a simple value test. Do we need it, what value does it provide, what will it cost over its full life, who pays, and what result are we getting?

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

Residents should be able to see, in plain language, what’s driving the tax increase, what each major budget decision costs, what service they’re receiving for it, and what happens if we defer the spending. I’d also like clearer reporting on reserves, debt, infrastructure needs and the long-term operating costs attached to major capital projects.