Ward 2 - Orléans West-Innes

Jenna Jessop

"If we want people to choose public transit instead of driving, we have to give them a system they can actually rely on. Right now, too many people are dealing with cancelled buses, long waits, missed connections and trips that take far longer than they should. It is difficult to convince someone to leave their car at home when they cannot be confident they will get to work, school or an appointment on time.

My first priority would be reliability. That means making sure we have enough buses on the road, investing in the maintenance and replacement of our bus fleet, and having enough operators and mechanics to deliver the service we promise. I also want better public reporting on cancelled and late buses so we can see where the problems are happening and hold the system accountable for improving them.

Frequency matters too. We need reliable local routes that allow people to get around their own communities, along with better connections across the city and more direct and express service where it makes sense. The LRT is an important part of our transit system, but it cannot solve every transportation need. A strong bus network has to work alongside it.

Affordability is also important. I would not support further fare increases right now, and I would look for ways to make transit more affordable for youth, seniors and low-income residents. If we want to encourage more people to use transit, continuing to make it more expensive while service remains unreliable moves us in the wrong direction. Ultimately, people will choose transit when it is reliable, frequent, affordable and convenient. We need to focus on making OC Transpo a service people want to use, not simply one they use because they have no other option."

David Purchase

"People aren’t going to leave their cars at home for a transit system they can’t count on. We need to make OC Transpo reliable again. Buses need to show up when they’re supposed to, and people shouldn’t need two or three transfers to make a trip that used to be simple. I don’t think every trip should be forced onto the train. The LRT is an important part of our system, but we also need good local routes, reliable connections, and direct express buses where they make sense and where the ridership supports them. That’s especially important in Orléans. We need better north-south service within our own community, and before the east LRT opens, people should know how they’re getting to the stations, how often their bus will run, and how they’re getting home. If we want people to choose transit, we have to give them a reason to. Make it reliable, make it convenient and keep it affordable. Give people a service they can actually depend on."

~~

"Si on veut que les gens laissent leur auto à la maison plus souvent, il faut d’abord leur offrir un transport en commun fiable. Les autobus doivent arriver à l’heure. Les gens ne devraient pas avoir à faire deux ou trois correspondances pour un trajet qui était beaucoup plus simple avant. Le train léger est important, mais on ne peut pas bâtir tout notre réseau autour du train. Il faut aussi de bonnes lignes locales, des correspondances qui fonctionnent et des autobus express directs là où la demande le justifie. C’est particulièrement important à Orléans. Il faut améliorer le service nord-sud dans notre communauté. Avant l’ouverture de la ligne 1, les résidents doivent savoir comment ils vont se rendre aux stations, à quelle fréquence les autobus vont passer et comment ils vont revenir dans leur quartier. Si on veut que les gens choisissent le transport en commun, il faut que ce soit un vrai choix. Un service fiable, pratique et abordable sur lequel les gens peuvent compter."

Jenna Jessop

"If we want more people to walk, bike and roll, we need to make sure they can actually get where they are going safely. Ottawa has made commitments to active transportation, but building individual pieces of infrastructure is not enough if those pieces do not connect.

I would focus on closing the gaps in our existing network, particularly where a bike lane or pathway suddenly ends and leaves someone navigating a busy road or unsafe intersection. Those gaps can be the difference between someone feeling comfortable biking to work, school, a local business or a transit station and deciding to drive instead. People are not going to choose cycling for everyday trips if they do not feel safe doing it.

That also means looking carefully at intersections and crossings, where people walking, biking or using mobility devices can be particularly vulnerable. I want us to prioritize connections that allow people to complete an entire trip safely, rather than looking at individual stretches of infrastructure in isolation.

We also need to make active transportation more practical year-round. I would like to see Ottawa look at expanding winter maintenance of important pathways and connections, particularly those that provide access to transit, schools and other community destinations.

Ultimately, meeting our sustainable transportation commitments is not just about how many kilometres of infrastructure we build. It is about whether people can actually use that network to get where they need to go and feel safe doing it."

David Purchase

"I would measure whether we’re actually getting more people walking, biking and rolling, not how many kilometres of infrastructure we built. There’s a big difference.

The City already has plans for new sidewalks, pathways and cycling projects. The City has approved a list of projects for the next phase. I’m not interested in spending that money and then calling it a success because the project is finished. I want to know if more people actually use it and whether it made the trip safer or easier.

Those results should matter when we decide what gets funded next. If something is working and more people are using it, build on it. If it isn’t, find out why. Maybe the route doesn’t connect properly, people don’t feel safe using it, or it isn’t being maintained well enough. Fix the problem before spending more money doing the same thing somewhere else.

The City has already set a goal of getting at least half of trips onto sustainable transportation by 2046. We should be showing residents whether we’re actually getting there, including what’s happening in suburban communities like Orléans. If the numbers aren’t moving, then what we’re doing isn’t working and we need to change it."

~~

"Ottawa investit déjà beaucoup d’argent dans les trottoirs, les sentiers et les infrastructures cyclables. Ce que je veux savoir, c’est si ça change vraiment la façon dont les gens se déplacent. Est-ce qu’on voit réellement plus de gens marcher, prendre leur vélo ou utiliser d’autres moyens pour se déplacer? Pour moi, c’est ça le résultat qui compte.

Quand un projet est terminé, on devrait regarder ce qui se passe après. Si les gens l’utilisent et qu’on voit une différence, continuons dans cette direction. Mais si les chiffres ne bougent pas, il faut comprendre pourquoi avant de refaire la même chose ailleurs. Le problème peut être un lien qui ne fonctionne pas, un endroit où les gens ne se sentent pas en sécurité ou simplement un trajet qui n’est pas bien entretenu.

Je veux que ces résultats comptent quand le temps vient de décider où on investit ensuite. Je ne veux pas qu’on mesure notre succès simplement en disant qu’on a construit un certain nombre de kilomètres de pistes ou de sentiers.

La Ville vise déjà au moins 50 % des déplacements par des modes de transport durables d’ici 2046. Alors montrons aux résidents si on avance réellement vers cet objectif, particulièrement dans les secteurs de banlieue comme Orléans. Si ça fonctionne, on continue. Si ça ne fonctionne pas, on change notre façon de faire."

Jenna Jessop

"I believe Ottawa should focus on making better use of the land we already have within our urban boundary before continuing to expand outward. We need more housing, but where and how we build it matters.

Expanding the boundary comes with long-term costs. New communities need roads, transit, water and sewer infrastructure, emergency services, parks and other City services. At the same time, we already have infrastructure within the existing city that needs significant investment.

Focusing more growth within the existing boundary also does not mean putting high-rise towers everywhere there is available land. We need to be intentional about the type and scale of development we bring into established communities. There are places where greater height and density make sense, particularly around major transit corridors and hubs, but development also needs to fit the surrounding community and be supported by the infrastructure and services available. We can add more housing through a range of options, including low- and mid-rise development, without dramatically changing every established neighbourhood.

I would not treat the urban boundary as something that can never change, but I would set a high bar for further expansion. We should be able to demonstrate that it is actually needed, understand the full infrastructure and financial impacts, and consider what we are losing in farmland and natural areas before expanding farther outward.

Growth is coming, and we need to plan for it. My priority would be thoughtful growth that makes better use of the communities and infrastructure we already have, while making sure new development is appropriate for the places where we put it."

David Purchase

"I don't support expanding Ottawa's urban boundary when we already have enough land inside it to accommodate years of growth.

That doesn't mean I would say the boundary can never change. Ottawa is going to keep growing and we have to plan for that. But before we take more land into the urban area, I want to see that we actually need it and understand what it's going to cost taxpayers to service it.

That part matters to me. Expanding outward can mean extending roads, water, sewers, transit and other City services farther and farther out. I don't think existing taxpayers should be picking up that bill just because someone wants to open up more land for development.

Use the land we already have responsibly first. If the numbers eventually show Ottawa needs more land to handle its growth, then we look at it based on the facts at that time."

~~

"Je ne vois pas pourquoi on devrait agrandir les limites urbaines présentement alors qu'on a déjà assez de terrains pour répondre à la croissance pendant plusieurs années.

Ça ne veut pas dire que les limites ne changeront jamais. Ottawa continue de grandir et il faut être réaliste là-dessus. Mais avant d'aller plus loin, je veux qu'on démontre qu'on a réellement besoin de ces terrains et surtout qu'on sache combien ça va coûter aux contribuables.

Parce qu'un nouveau secteur, ce n'est pas seulement des maisons. Il faut aussi penser aux rues, aux égouts, à l'eau, au transport en commun et aux services que la Ville devra fournir pendant des années. Je ne veux pas transférer ces coûts aux résidents qui paient déjà leurs taxes.

Utilisons d'abord intelligemment l'espace qu'on a. Si un jour les chiffres démontrent qu'on doit agrandir les limites pour répondre à la croissance d'Ottawa, on prendra cette décision avec les faits devant nous."

Jenna Jessop

"We need to prepare for extreme weather before an emergency happens, not just respond after the damage is done.

That starts with protecting and expanding our tree canopy, which provides much-needed shade during extreme heat, and protecting green spaces, wetlands and other natural areas that can help absorb water and reduce the impacts of heavy rainfall and flooding.

We also need to make sure the infrastructure we are building today is ready for the weather we are increasingly experiencing. When the City replaces a road, sewer, culvert or park, we should be asking whether it can handle heavier rainfall, flooding, extreme heat and stronger storms. It makes much more sense to build that resilience in from the beginning than to pay to repair the same infrastructure after an extreme weather event. We can also use practical solutions like rain gardens, better drainage, more permeable surfaces and other ways of allowing rainwater to soak into the ground instead of overwhelming storm sewers.

Emergency preparedness is another important piece. I would like to explore working with community associations to establish community emergency hubs or kits, with things like backup power, charging capability, first-aid supplies and other basic emergency equipment. Community associations know their neighbourhoods and can be an important link between residents and the City during a major emergency.

Climate resilience is ultimately about preparing our infrastructure, our neighbourhoods and our residents before the next major weather event happens."

David Purchase

"This is something I'm already working on at the community level.

I sit on the Blackburn Community Association Board of Directors, and we've been working to establish a local emergency plan so we can identify and support vulnerable residents when a major storm or other emergency happens.

The City already has an emergency management strategy and tools for communities to build these plans. What I've learned from actually trying to do it is that there's a big difference between having a framework on paper and making it work in a neighbourhood.

I want communities to have a clear point of contact at the City and designated locations that residents already know they can go to during an emergency. Those locations also need the right equipment. If there's a multi-day power outage, for example, a community centre with backup power could make a very real difference for someone who relies on electrically powered medical equipment.

We also need to know ahead of time who may need additional help. Our neighbourhood watch program uses street captains who know their neighbours, and that kind of local knowledge can be extremely valuable during an emergency.

We're not going to stop extreme heat, flooding, wildfire smoke or major storms from happening. But we can do a much better job of preparing at the neighbourhood level before they happen, particularly for residents who may not be able to manage on their own."

~~

"C'est un dossier sur lequel je travaille déjà dans ma propre communauté.

Je siège au conseil d'administration de la Blackburn Community Association, où nous travaillons à mettre en place un plan d'urgence local. Une partie importante du travail consiste à savoir quels résidents pourraient avoir besoin d'aide lorsqu'une grosse tempête ou une autre situation d'urgence arrive.

La Ville a déjà des plans et des outils pour aider les communautés à se préparer. Mais quand on essaie réellement de mettre un plan en place, on se rend vite compte qu'il manque encore des choses très pratiques.

Je veux qu'une association communautaire sache exactement qui appeler à la Ville et que chaque communauté ait un endroit désigné où les résidents savent qu'ils peuvent aller en cas d'urgence. Ces endroits doivent aussi être équipés pour faire le travail. Pendant une panne de courant qui dure plusieurs jours, par exemple, avoir de l'électricité de secours dans un centre communautaire peut être essentiel pour une personne qui dépend d'un appareil médical électrique.

Il faut aussi mieux utiliser les réseaux qui existent déjà dans nos quartiers. À Blackburn, notre programme de surveillance de quartier fonctionne avec des responsables de rue qui connaissent leurs voisins. En situation d'urgence, ce sont souvent ces personnes qui vont savoir qu'un voisin âgé, une personne à mobilité réduite ou quelqu'un qui vit seul pourrait avoir besoin d'aide.

On ne peut pas empêcher une tempête, une inondation, une vague de chaleur ou la fumée des feux de forêt d'arriver. Mais on peut préparer nos quartiers avant que ça arrive et savoir comment rejoindre rapidement les résidents qui auront le plus besoin d'aide."

Jenna Jessop

"Preserving our tree canopy starts with protecting the mature trees we already have. We can plant thousands of new trees, but it takes decades for them to provide the same shade and environmental benefits as a mature tree. I want tree protection to be considered early when we are planning development, road work and other City projects, so we are designing around healthy trees wherever reasonably possible rather than considering them at the end of the process.

At the same time, we need to keep planting and be strategic about where we do it. I want to see us focus planting in neighbourhoods with lower tree canopy and in places where trees can make a real difference, including parks, sidewalks, transit stops and walking and cycling routes.

I would also support continuing to grow programs like Plant Your Place!, which provides free trees for residents to plant on their own properties and offers additional planting support in neighbourhoods with lower tree canopy. Programs like this make it easier for residents to be part of growing Ottawa's urban forest.

Finally, as we build and redevelop communities, we need to make sure new trees actually have the space and soil they need to grow and survive. Expanding our canopy isn't just about how many trees we plant. It is about protecting the trees we already have and making sure the trees we plant today are still healthy and providing shade decades from now."

David Purchase

"The first thing is protecting the mature trees we already have. We can plant thousands of new trees, but it takes decades for a young tree to replace what a large mature tree provides to a neighbourhood.

That has to be taken seriously when we approve development and when the City does its own road and infrastructure work. Sometimes a tree does have to come down, but that shouldn't automatically be the easiest option. If it can reasonably be protected, it should be.

When trees do have to be removed, I want the replacement requirements enforced and I want to know that those replacement trees are actually being planted and surviving. Ottawa already has rules requiring replacement or compensation for protected trees that are removed. Those rules need to mean something on the ground.

We also shouldn't just plant trees wherever it's easiest to put them. Ottawa has a 40% urban tree canopy goal, and we have mapping that shows us which neighbourhoods have less canopy. That's where planting should be concentrated, along with replacing City trees when they're lost and making it easier for residents who want trees on their own properties to get them.

For me, success isn't how many trees we say we planted in a year. It's whether Ottawa's tree canopy is actually growing."

~~

"Planter de nouveaux arbres est important, mais il faut commencer par protéger les arbres matures qu'on a déjà. Un nouvel arbre ne remplace pas du jour au lendemain un grand arbre qui est là depuis 40 ou 50 ans.

Quand la Ville refait une rue ou qu'un nouveau projet de développement arrive dans un quartier, je veux qu'on regarde sérieusement comment conserver les arbres existants avant de décider de les enlever. Il y aura des situations où un arbre doit partir, mais ça ne devrait pas être automatiquement la solution la plus facile.

Et lorsqu'on doit enlever des arbres protégés, les règles de remplacement doivent être appliquées. Je veux aussi qu'on fasse le suivi. Dire qu'on a planté un arbre ne veut pas dire grand-chose s'il est mort quelques années plus tard.

Ottawa vise un couvert forestier urbain de 40 %. On sait aussi quels quartiers ont moins d'arbres que les autres. Utilisons cette information pour décider où les nouveaux arbres peuvent faire la plus grande différence, tout en facilitant la plantation chez les résidents qui veulent aussi participer.

Au bout du compte, je veux voir le couvert forestier d'Ottawa augmenter, pas seulement un rapport qui nous dit combien d'arbres ont été plantés."

Jenna Jessop

"I think we need to look at waste from both sides: how we can keep more material out of the landfill in the first place, and what we do with the waste that is left.

One of the simplest things we can do is make it easier for residents to divert waste. People need convenient options for things like electronics, textiles, hazardous waste and other items that should not end up in the garbage. If we make the right choice difficult or inconvenient, we are less likely to get the results we want.

I would also like to see more support for reuse and repair. Repair cafés, tool libraries, swap events and other community programs can help people extend the life of things they already own instead of throwing them away and buying new. That is what a circular economy should be about: keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible.

At the same time, I think Ottawa needs to be open to exploring proven waste technologies for the material that is still left after we reduce, reuse, recycle and compost as much as reasonably possible. I would want any option to be carefully evaluated for its cost, environmental impact, reliability and how much waste it would actually keep out of landfill.

There probably isn't one solution to Ottawa's waste problem. We need to make it easier to divert waste today while also being willing to explore better ways of managing what remains in the future."

David Purchase

"I think we need to be careful about putting more and more of the responsibility for waste reduction onto individual residents. I don't support continuing to reduce how much garbage a household is allowed to put out and treating that as the solution.

A lot of what residents throw away started with decisions made long before they bought it. How much packaging was used? Could the product be repaired? Could the materials be recycled or reused? I think we need to put more responsibility on the companies producing and selling those products instead of continually asking residents to do more with less.

Ontario has already moved in that direction with the Blue Box system, where producers are now responsible for the materials they put into the recycling system. I think that's the right principle.

At the City level, I would focus on making recycling, organics, reuse and repair easier for people who want to use them, while looking seriously at better ways to deal with the waste that remains. Ottawa's landfill does have a limited life, so we can't ignore the problem. But I don't think the answer is simply another restriction on households.

A circular economy makes sense when we're keeping useful materials and products out of the landfill and getting more value out of them. I support practical solutions that accomplish that without pretending Ottawa residents can solve a much larger waste problem on their own."

~~

"Je pense qu'il faut faire attention avant de toujours demander aux résidents d'en faire plus pour réduire les déchets. Je ne suis pas en faveur de continuer à réduire la quantité de déchets qu'une famille peut mettre au chemin et de présenter ça comme la solution.

Une grande partie du problème commence bien avant que quelque chose arrive dans nos maisons. Les entreprises décident de l'emballage, des matériaux utilisés et souvent si un produit peut être réparé ou non. Il faut donc qu'elles aient aussi une responsabilité beaucoup plus importante.

L'Ontario a déjà commencé à aller dans cette direction avec le système de recyclage, où les producteurs sont maintenant responsables des matériaux qu'ils mettent sur le marché. C'est une approche qui a du sens pour moi.

À la Ville, je préfère qu'on rende le recyclage, le compostage, la réutilisation et la réparation plus faciles pour les gens plutôt que d'imposer continuellement de nouvelles restrictions aux ménages. Il faut aussi être réalistes : notre site d'enfouissement a une durée de vie limitée et Ottawa doit prévoir ce qui viendra après.

Pour moi, l'économie circulaire devient intéressante lorsqu'on réussit à réutiliser des produits et des matériaux qui auraient autrement été jetés. Faisons-le de façon pratique, mais ne faisons pas croire aux résidents d'Ottawa que ce problème repose entièrement sur leurs épaules."

Jenna Jessop

"I want the City to focus on making cleaner choices practical and accessible for residents instead of just setting targets.

Transportation is a big part of that. We need reliable, frequent public transit that people actually want to use, along with safe and connected walking and cycling networks that give people realistic alternatives to driving. The City should also continue transitioning its own vehicles and transit fleet toward cleaner and zero-emission options where they meet our operational needs.

I also support growing clean and renewable energy in Ottawa. That can include things like solar generation and energy storage on City buildings and other appropriate properties, as well as responsibly located renewable-energy projects.

For residents, we should continue supporting programs that make it easier to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and make cleaner choices. That includes things like insulation, heat pumps, solar panels, battery storage and EV charging. These improvements can reduce emissions while also helping households lower their energy use over time.

The City cannot reach net zero on its own. Many of the biggest decisions and funding programs are controlled by the provincial and federal governments. I would work with both levels of government to bring funding and programs to Ottawa that help residents, businesses and the City make this transition.

For me, meeting our climate commitments is about making sure the cleaner option is also a practical option. If we want people to make different choices, we need to give them the infrastructure, services and support to be able to do it."

David Purchase

"Ottawa has already made the commitment, so my approach would be to measure whether we're actually getting there and be honest with residents about the cost and the results.

The City already tracks greenhouse gas emissions every year. I want those numbers to drive our decisions. If we're spending taxpayers' money on a program to reduce emissions, we should be able to show what it accomplished, how much it cost and whether it's actually moving us toward the target.

I also think the City should concentrate on the things it can directly control. Making City buildings more energy efficient is a good example because it can reduce emissions and operating costs at the same time. The City reported this year that efficiency upgrades to its facilities are already saving about $300,000 annually while reducing emissions.

Where I would be cautious is putting increasingly expensive requirements on individual residents and pretending City Hall can accomplish this alone. Ottawa's own Energy Evolution strategy acknowledges that reaching the target requires action and investment well beyond municipal government.

I'm prepared to support practical measures that produce measurable results. But I also want residents to know what we're spending, what we're getting for that money and whether we're actually on track for 2050."

~~

"Ottawa a déjà pris cet engagement. Pour moi, il faut maintenant être capables de démontrer aux résidents si on avance réellement vers la cible et combien ça nous coûte.

La Ville mesure déjà ses émissions chaque année. Servons-nous de ces données pour prendre nos décisions. Quand on investit l'argent des contribuables dans un programme, je veux savoir ce qu'on a réellement obtenu en retour.

Il y a aussi des choses que la Ville contrôle directement. Par exemple, améliorer l'efficacité énergétique de nos propres bâtiments peut réduire les émissions tout en diminuant les coûts d'exploitation. C'est le genre de projet qui m'intéresse parce qu'on peut en mesurer les résultats.

Là où je serais plus prudent, c'est de continuellement transférer la responsabilité et les coûts aux résidents. La Ville ne peut pas atteindre une cible comme celle-là toute seule. Les gouvernements fédéral et provincial, les entreprises et d'autres secteurs ont aussi un rôle important à jouer.

Je vais regarder les résultats, les coûts et les progrès réels vers 2050. Si une mesure fonctionne et offre une bonne valeur aux contribuables, ça vaut la peine de continuer. Si ce n'est pas le cas, je ne veux pas qu'on continue simplement parce qu'on s'était donné une cible."

Jenna Jessop

"Ottawa's endorsement of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty should be reflected in the decisions we make as a City. For me, that means gradually reducing our reliance on fossil fuels while making sure the transition is practical and affordable for residents.

The City can lead by example by moving its own buildings, vehicles and transit toward cleaner energy as infrastructure and equipment are replaced. At the same time, we should be looking for opportunities to grow renewable energy here in Ottawa, including solar and energy storage on City property and supporting responsibly located renewable-energy projects.

We also need to make it easier for residents to make that transition themselves. Better public transit and active transportation can reduce our dependence on cars, while EV charging infrastructure, home energy-efficiency programs and support for technologies like heat pumps can give people more affordable alternatives to fossil fuels.

These choices also need to be considered when we make major long-term investments. If we are building infrastructure that will be around for decades, we should be thinking about whether it moves us toward our climate commitments or locks us into greater fossil-fuel use.

Many of the biggest decisions around energy and fossil-fuel production are outside municipal control, so Ottawa also needs to continue working with the provincial and federal governments. We should focus on the decisions we can make locally while advocating for the funding and broader policy changes needed to make the transition possible."

David Purchase

"Ottawa supported the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2022. I understand what it's trying to accomplish, but I think we need to be realistic about what Ottawa can actually do and what belongs with the federal and provincial governments.

For the City, I would start with our own operations. We already track our emissions, so use that information to figure out where we're wasting energy and where changing something would actually make a difference. If one of our buildings is costing us too much to heat and operate, that's worth looking at. An upgrade that lowers emissions and saves taxpayers money over time makes sense to me.

I don't think we should start throwing out vehicles or equipment that still have years of useful life just to meet a target. Use them, maintain them and replace them when the time comes. At that point, look at what makes sense based on the technology, the cost and how the vehicle is actually used.

I would also want residents to be able to see whether we're making progress. Not another big report that nobody reads. Show what the City changed, what it cost, what we're saving and whether emissions actually went down. If something isn't working, change the approach instead of continuing to spend money on it.

What I don't support is continually shifting more of the responsibility onto individual residents. People still have to heat their homes and get to work. Ottawa should be doing a better job with the things the City itself owns and operates, while pushing the other levels of government to deal with the much larger parts of this issue that fall under their responsibility."

~~

"Ottawa a appuyé le Traité de non-prolifération des combustibles fossiles en 2022. Je comprends l'objectif, mais il faut aussi être réalistes sur ce qu'Ottawa peut faire elle-même et ce qui relève plutôt des gouvernements fédéral et provincial.

Je commencerais par les opérations de la Ville. On mesure déjà nos émissions, alors servons-nous de cette information pour voir où on gaspille de l'énergie et où un changement peut vraiment faire une différence. Si un bâtiment municipal coûte trop cher à chauffer ou à faire fonctionner, regardons ce qu'on peut améliorer. Si les travaux réduisent les émissions et permettent aussi d'économiser à long terme, ça a du sens.

Je ne veux pas qu'on commence à remplacer des véhicules ou de l'équipement qui peuvent encore servir pendant plusieurs années simplement pour atteindre une cible. Entretenons-les et utilisons-les jusqu'au moment où ils doivent réellement être remplacés. À ce moment-là, on regarde ce qui existe, combien ça coûte et ce qui répond vraiment aux besoins de la Ville.

Les résidents devraient aussi pouvoir voir si on avance réellement. Pas besoin d'un autre gros rapport que personne ne va lire. Montrons ce qui a changé, combien ça a coûté et si les émissions ont réellement diminué. Si quelque chose ne fonctionne pas, on ajuste notre approche.

Je ne veux surtout pas que la réponse soit de toujours transférer plus de responsabilités aux résidents. Les gens doivent chauffer leur maison et se rendre au travail. Ottawa devrait commencer par mieux gérer ce qui lui appartient, pendant que les autres niveaux de gouvernement s'occupent des décisions beaucoup plus importantes qui relèvent d'eux."

Jenna Jessop

"Meeting Ottawa's biodiversity commitments needs to start with protecting the natural areas we already have and restoring areas that have been damaged.

I want biodiversity to be considered much earlier when we are making planning and development decisions. We should be identifying important habitat, wetlands and natural areas before plans are largely designed, when there is still an opportunity to protect them and work around them. Wetlands deserve particular attention because they not only provide important habitat, but also help manage flooding and protect our water.

There are also opportunities to improve biodiversity on land the City already owns. I would like to see more native trees, shrubs and plants incorporated into parks, roadsides, stormwater areas and other appropriate City spaces. We can also restore damaged shorelines, wetlands and other natural areas by replanting native vegetation and improving habitat.

Part of that work needs to include doing more to manage invasive species. I would support stronger efforts to prevent their spread, remove invasive species where possible and restore affected areas with native plants. Protecting existing habitat is important, but we also need to make sure those natural areas remain healthy.

Protecting biodiversity isn't only about drawing a line around a piece of land and calling it protected. We need to protect important natural areas before they are lost, restore areas that have been damaged, and make better use of the land the City already manages to support healthy ecosystems and wildlife."

David Purchase

"I would start by getting a clear picture of where Ottawa actually stands against the 30% commitment. If we're already protecting a significant amount, residents should know that. If we're short, then we need to know by how much before we start making new decisions about land.

Ottawa already has a natural heritage system built into the Official Plan. I would use that work rather than creating another layer of studies. When an area has real environmental importance, protect it and make sure development around it respects that.

Where I think this really matters is as Ottawa continues to grow. I support responsible growth, but residents shouldn't find out late in the process that a development could affect an important natural area near their neighbourhood. That information should be available from the beginning, and protecting the area should be part of the discussion before plans get too far along.

I don't see the 30% commitment as simply hitting a number on a map. I want to know that the land we're protecting is land that actually matters and that we're not losing important natural areas in one part of the city while claiming success somewhere else."

~~

"Je commencerais par demander où Ottawa en est réellement par rapport à l'objectif de 30 %. Si une grande partie du territoire est déjà protégée, les résidents devraient le savoir. S'il nous en manque, il faut savoir combien avant de commencer à prendre de nouvelles décisions sur les terrains.

La Ville a déjà identifié un réseau de milieux naturels dans son Plan officiel. Je préfère partir de ce travail plutôt que de lancer encore une autre étude. Lorsqu'un secteur a une vraie importance environnementale, protégeons-le et tenons-en compte lorsqu'un projet est proposé à proximité.

Avec la croissance d'Ottawa, ces décisions vont revenir de plus en plus souvent. Je suis en faveur d'une croissance responsable, mais je ne veux pas que les résidents apprennent à la dernière minute qu'un projet pourrait avoir un impact sur un milieu naturel important près de chez eux. Ça doit faire partie de la discussion dès le début.

Pour moi, atteindre le 30% ne devrait pas simplement être un chiffre sur une carte. Je veux qu'on protège des endroits qui ont réellement de la valeur et qu'on ne perde pas un milieu naturel important d'un côté de la ville pour ensuite dire qu'on a atteint notre objectif ailleurs."

Jenna Jessop

"Community participation needs to happen early enough that residents can actually influence decisions, not after most of the decisions have already been made. When a City project or development could significantly affect a local natural area, I want residents and community organizations to know about it early, understand what is being proposed and have a meaningful opportunity to provide input.

I would also like to create more opportunities for residents to be directly involved in caring for their local environment. That could include community tree planting, native planting and pollinator projects, shoreline and habitat restoration, invasive species removal, community gardens and other local stewardship initiatives. The City can work with community associations and environmental organizations that already have knowledge and volunteers willing to help.

We should also make it easier for residents to understand the environmental information behind City decisions. Reports and consultations should clearly explain what is being considered, what the potential impacts are and what parts of a proposal can still change.

Most importantly, we need to close the feedback loop. When residents take the time to participate, they should hear back about what the City heard, what changed as a result and why certain suggestions could or could not be incorporated. That is how we build trust and encourage people to stay involved."

David Purchase

"I think the best way to get people involved is to make it local and give them something they can actually participate in.

I'm on the Blackburn Community Association Board of Directors, and I've seen how much can get done when residents are involved in their own community. The City should be working more directly with community associations on local environmental projects and helping residents who want to get involved actually do it.

That could be something happening in a park, along a pathway or somewhere else in the neighbourhood. The idea doesn't always have to come from City Hall either. If residents see something that could be improved in their community, there should be an easier way to bring that idea forward and work with the City to make it happen.

The same applies to environmental decisions. If the City is considering something that could affect a neighbourhood, residents need to be brought into the conversation early enough that their input can still make a difference. I don't consider it meaningful consultation if people are being asked for their opinion after the important decisions have basically already been made.

As councillor, I would make sure residents know what's happening in Ward 2, how they can get involved and who they can contact when they have an idea of their own. That's how you get more people participating. You bring these things down to the neighbourhood level instead of expecting residents to go looking through the City's website to figure out what's going on."

~~

"Pour moi, la meilleure façon d'encourager les gens à participer, c'est de ramener ça au niveau du quartier et de leur donner de vraies occasions de s'impliquer.

Je siège au conseil d'administration de la Blackburn Community Association et je vois ce que les résidents peuvent accomplir lorsqu'ils participent directement dans leur communauté. La Ville devrait travailler davantage avec les associations communautaires sur des projets environnementaux locaux et aider les résidents qui veulent participer à passer de l'idée à l'action.

Ça peut être un projet dans un parc, le long d'un sentier ou ailleurs dans le quartier. Et l'idée n'a pas toujours besoin de venir de la Ville. Si des résidents voient quelque chose qu'on pourrait améliorer dans leur communauté, ils devraient pouvoir proposer leur idée et travailler avec la Ville pour la réaliser.

C'est la même chose pour les décisions environnementales. Lorsqu'une décision de la Ville risque d'avoir un impact sur un quartier, les résidents doivent pouvoir participer assez tôt pour que leur opinion puisse encore changer quelque chose. Demander l'avis des gens lorsque les décisions importantes sont pratiquement déjà prises, ce n'est pas une vraie consultation.

Comme conseiller, je veux que les résidents du quartier 2 sachent ce qui se passe dans leur communauté, comment ils peuvent participer et à qui parler lorsqu'ils ont eux-mêmes une idée. C'est beaucoup plus efficace que d'attendre que les gens cherchent eux-mêmes l'information quelque part sur le site Web de la Ville."

Jenna Jessop

"For me, good environmental policy should also make people's everyday lives better. Reliable public transit gives people a realistic alternative to driving. Safe walking and cycling connections give people more ways to get around their communities. Trees and green spaces provide shade and make neighbourhoods more resilient to extreme heat and heavy rainfall. Thoughtful growth can protect natural areas while making better use of the infrastructure we already have.

I also believe we need to make environmental choices practical and accessible. It is much easier to ask people to make greener choices when we give them affordable and realistic ways to do so.

Finally, I want residents to be part of these conversations. Whether we are talking about development, transportation, parks or climate initiatives, people should have an opportunity to participate early, understand the decisions being made and know what happened with their feedback."

David Purchase

"I think environmental policy works best when people can actually see the result.

Throughout this questionnaire, I've tried to be clear about that. I support protecting the natural areas that matter, preparing our communities for severe weather and reducing the City's environmental impact. But I also think we have to be realistic about what municipal government can accomplish and what we're asking residents to pay for.

I don't believe the answer to every environmental problem is another restriction on residents or another City program. Sometimes the better answer is simply making the services we already have work better, planning properly before we build something, or holding the City accountable for the commitments it has already made.

Cost matters too. If we're spending taxpayers' money on an environmental initiative, I want to know whether it's actually working. If we can reduce energy use and save money at the same time, that's a good investment. If we're protecting an important natural area, residents should understand why it matters. And when we're asking people to change something in their own lives, there should be a good reason for it.

My approach is pretty simple. Set realistic goals, measure whether we're getting there and be willing to change course when something isn't working."

~~

"Pour moi, une bonne politique environnementale doit donner des résultats que les gens peuvent réellement voir.

Dans mes réponses à ce questionnaire, j'ai essayé d'être clair là-dessus. Je veux protéger les milieux naturels qui comptent, mieux préparer nos communautés aux événements météorologiques importants et réduire l'impact environnemental de la Ville. Mais il faut aussi être réalistes sur ce qu'une municipalité peut accomplir et sur ce qu'on demande aux résidents de payer.

Je ne pense pas que la réponse à chaque problème environnemental soit une nouvelle restriction pour les résidents ou un nouveau programme municipal. Parfois, il faut simplement améliorer ce qu'on fait déjà, mieux planifier avant de construire ou demander à la Ville de rendre des comptes sur les engagements qu'elle a déjà pris.

Le coût compte aussi. Lorsqu'on dépense l'argent des contribuables pour une initiative environnementale, je veux savoir si ça fonctionne réellement. Si on peut réduire notre consommation d'énergie tout en économisant de l'argent, c'est un bon investissement. Si on protège un milieu naturel important, les résidents devraient comprendre pourquoi. Et lorsqu'on demande aux gens de changer quelque chose dans leur vie quotidienne, il devrait y avoir une bonne raison.

Mon approche est assez simple. Fixons-nous des objectifs réalistes, vérifions si on les atteint et soyons prêts à changer notre façon de faire lorsque quelque chose ne fonctionne pas."