How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with David Gauthier's mark for it on the right; the key underneath says what each mark means. Open a row for the questions behind that mark, what they answered, and why each answer scored as it did. The control above the list opens all of them at once. At the foot of the page you can print this scorecard or share it as an image.
General
What David Gauthier said
- Not graded GEN-01
If you could change one policy, bylaw, feature, or municipal asset (i.e, facility or infrastructure) in your municipality, what would it be and why?
To see that policy is strengthened for residents to more easily collect votes on issues at the municipal level, important to them. - Not graded GEN-02
Your municipality has received $10 million in new annual funding and must spend all of it. How would you allocate it across the following areas? Your answers must total $10 million.
David Gauthier's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $2,000,000 Transit $1,100,000 Walking Infrastructure $600,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $150,000 Roadway Infrastructure $1,200,000 Policing $400,000 Fire & Emergency Services $850,000 Parks & Recreation $300,000 Arts & Culture $250,000 Climate Action & Environment $300,000 Unhoused Resident Services $2,300,000 Community-Based Clinics $550,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
We are neighbors with one of the biggest communities addressing the unhoused on all of Victoria, I am not against housing issues in the slightest, I just consider the present market conditions, and community neighborhood opinions seriously, one might consider the latter to be a part of municipal elects job description. I think we can reclaim some infrastructure costs more recently spent in a meaningful way, and I am studying many aspects to roadway, transit & fire/emerg specifically as it relates Esquimalt, the goal to be ease, awareness, and safety.
Healthcare access
What David Gauthier said
- Not graded HLT-01
What role should your municipality play in establishing new primary care clinics?
Why we ask this
Ungraded. Mainly curious about how you'd approach expanding healthcare access in your region.
Chose 1 of 4 options - Not graded HLT-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to healthcare in your municipality, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Tons can be improved & I'm already advocating, if elected I will continue to advocate with such a position, happy to study such models, perhaps more diversity to medical care models is safer still, but various other changes can relieve wait times, protect against fraud, and save tax dollars. I'd really appreciate finding medical tool specialists, been trying for a while to various groups, I really wanna see better outcomes here.
Transit
F- 20% of this topic TRN-01 C-
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Selects cheaper fares for seniors from the fare measures put to candidates. One measure out of four is the narrowest answer that still names something concrete.
How this question is graded
A count of ticks, because no option here is cheaper than the others in the way CLI-06's are. Four or more = A. Three = B. Two = C. One = C-. None = F. The rows graded before this rubric was written are not perfectly consistent with it at three and two ticks; they were left as typed and the majority letter was taken. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 F
Do you support removing general on-street parking (excluding accessible parking spaces) from frequent transit corridors and main arterial streets in your municipality, and reallocating that space to bus lanes, loading zones, and walking and cycling infrastructure?
Why this grade: Gives no answer on whether general parking should be cleared from frequent transit routes and main arterials. Nothing elsewhere in the topic explains the decline. Gauthier's refusal to answer warrants a grade of F as Esquimalt is home to three FTN transit routes in the form of Routes 14, 15, and 26, all three of which would benefit greatly from transit priority measures within Esquimalt.
How this question is graded
Yes, across the whole corridor = A. Yes, only during peak hours = B. Kind of, only when a specific project requires it = C. No = F. Peak hours only is a real, testable limit on a yes, so it takes the conditional-yes B. Only when a specific project requires it names no project and commits to nothing in advance, which is the case-by-case answer CLI-08 puts at C. A No is F because the question is about street space, which is infrastructure. Eight of the earlier rows put the case-by-case option at B and nineteen put it at C; the nineteen were followed. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 —
Do you support rapid deployment of transit priority measures on frequent transit corridors, even where this requires removing on-street parking or a general-purpose traffic lane?
Why this grade: Has not settled on whether to move quickly on transit priority along frequent corridors where that would cost parking or a lane of general traffic. The absence of a stated position leaves the question of road space unanswered.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, but not at the cost of a general-purpose travel lane = C-. No = F. The question asks specifically about giving up a traffic lane, so a yes that rules the lane out withholds the one thing being asked for and cannot take the conditional-yes B. C- rather than F because the rest of the toolkit is still on the table. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 6 options - 10% of this topic TRN-04 F
Do you support the creation of a regional transportation authority?
Why this grade: Gives no view on bringing transportation across the region under a single authority. Nothing in the topic explains why the question was passed over, so it is recorded as unanswered.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. A No is C- rather than F because this asks who should decide, not what should be built or funded, which puts it on the governance side of the CLI-03 split. Three earlier rows typed F and two typed C-; the governance rule was followed over the count. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 F
Do you support building new bus-only and bike-only connections through parks, golf courses or public land when doing so would substantially shorten transit and cycling trips?
Why this grade: Offers no answer on building new bus and bicycle links across parks, golf courses and public land. No reason for the decline is given anywhere in the topic, so it is treated as a question left unanswered.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if no mature trees are lost during construction = B. No = F. Losing no mature trees is a named and checkable condition, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is F because the question is about building a connection, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded TRN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to transit in your region, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I think some of these transit issues might be N/A for Esquimalt, all for people biking & busing to save time right, some of this could be offset by rail, I'd have to study the regional transport plan further. If such was looking to cover things like the SkyTrain in Van includes a multi ticket/transfer pass option, we talking tunnels? I have no issue with walk/bike ways too, this seems a specific or case by case consideration. I also have no issue looking into measures that make life easier for seniors, I'd consider some aspects outside just the age range and aware of residency of at least ten years being considered in some aspect already, and would be all for studying further options there.
Housing
F- HFL-01 2 / 8
What kinds of housing could your municipality use more of? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per selected type to max of 8. Housing exists on a continuum and different types are appropriate for different households. All housing is needed and positively affects other types via vacancy chains
David Gauthier chose 2 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 0 / 8
Which of the following items do you support to minimize tenant displacement and maintain/grow the supply of affordable housing? Select up all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per strategy to max of 8. To tackle tenant displacement local governments must take an all of the above approach to reduce the impacts associated with renovictions and evictions.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-03 0 / 6
Do you think your municipality should have target approval times for multifamily housing?
How this question is graded
6 points for 30/180 days, prorated for longer timelines. Housing delayed is housing denied. Long delays drive us costs for housing, increase the chance that they will be cancelled, and indicate a lack of clear published guidelines. A time limit on decisions prioritizes housing action and reforms.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 0 / 5
If there was a type of housing you wanted to see more of (e.g., affordable, non-market, family-sized, townhouses, etc.), what do you think are effective methods of getting more of it? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). To increase the building of certain desireable types of housing (affordable, family sized, etc), cities need to pursue a broad approach of both removing barriers and targetted incentives. Mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning) have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore reducing housing construction or increasing costs.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 8 options - HFL-05 0 / 3
Do you believe that the municipality should pre-zone to the uses, heights and densities outlined in the Official Community Plan, so that OCP-compliant projects can be built without rezoning or public hearing?
How this question is graded
3 points for yes, 0 for no. An OCP sets out the direction and vision for a municipality with broad input from the community and council. Matching zoning to long term consensus-based plans reduces scarcity and allows incentivizes OCP compliant housing to be built quickly.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 0 / 6
Beyond the three to four units Bill 44 already requires, what is the most housing you think should be legal to build by-right (i.e. without rezoning) in traditional single-family areas of your municipality?
How this question is graded
a) 0 points b) 1 points c) 2 points d) 5 points e) 6 points. With little room for new single family developments, housing abundance relies on density. People unable to afford a single family house should not be relegated to living only on busy arterials where high density is legal, but should have a diversity of housing options in every neighbourhood.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 6 options - HFL-07 0 / 3
A housing proposal has been reviewed by staff and they recommend approval. It requires rezoning because the existing zoning has not been updated. If it faces substantial neighbourhood opposition, how would you generally vote?
How this question is graded
3 points for a), 0 otherwise. Housing approval rules must be predictable and clear for those building housing, or it will lead to scarcity. If municipal planning staff have adequately considered objections to a project and still recommend approval it should be approved. If unanticipated issues are raised, policies should be clarified to ensure staff can work with applicants on future projects.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-08 0 / 2
Do you support eliminating minimum parking requirements for new developments or suites?
How this question is graded
1 point for yes, 2 points for yes with transportation demand management measures, 0 points for no. A single additional parking space can add tens of thousands to the cost of a home. However, a development without parking and without offsetting remedies can impact livability for the eventual occupants of a home.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 1 / 6
Non-market housing often faces additional challenges getting approved. Which of the following measures do you support to improve the prospects for below-market housing construction? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). Building homes is hard, building non-market homes is substantially harder. This has serious socio-economic consequences for certain members of society. With the exception of mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning), which have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore a deterrent to new construction, a broad and flexible approach is needed to help non-market housing across the approval finish line.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 0 / 6
The BC government set a housing target for Victoria at 4,902 homes over five years, which represents 75% of the estimated housing need for that period. Regardless of provincial requirements or penalties, do you believe the city should strive to build:
How this question is graded
6 points for too low, 1 for about right, 0 for too high. By definition, the provincial housing targets, being set as only 75% of estimated housing need is too low of a target to meet local housing needs.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-12 0 / 6
Municipal asset-management plans have identified substantial gaps between current funding and the amount needed to maintain and replace roads, water and sewer systems, public buildings, and other infrastructure. In Victoria, the 2024 Corporate Asset Management Strategy identified $570 million worth of infrastructure in poor or very poor condition. Which approaches would you prioritize to address this infrastructure problem? Select up to two.
How this question is graded
5 points for selecting more housing and commercial development, 1 for seeking additional provincial or federal funding, 0 points for increasing taxes or reducing infrastructure projects, and -2 points for increasing development charges, amenity contributions, and other fees imposed on new houses.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 6 options - HFL-10 0 / 7
If elected, what do you hope to have accomplished on the housing file at the end of your first year, and end of your four-year term?
How this question is graded
To receive full marks, candidates receive a point up to 7 for referencing impactful housing ideas in their answer including but not limited to: a rental vacancy rate target, a quantitative target regarding annual homes built, pre-zoning commitments / OCP alignment, non-profit by right commitment, commitment to tenant production aligned with platform, commitment to regulate and enforce Airbnb rules, delegate more rezoning / variance decisions to staff, a continuation of policies that have been working, developing a pre-approved catalog of housing designs, loosening design guidelines or other restrictive regulations, minimizing tenant displacement, increasing the regional housing fund, enhancing partnerships with other levels of government, the private sector, co-ops, and non-profit housing developers, streamlining regulations, and shorten requirements.
David Gauthier's answer1st, housing targets isn't my main focus (Though I will study the topic relentlessly given the importance to the municipal level, last studied such more regularly in 2022 & aware of the differences in how municipalities look to address it), that is not to say I don't respect a neighborhoods considerations to how things change around them, with recent tariff issues & what looks like a huge investment by municipal in housing already (construction all over). A neighborhoods consideration should be a big factor to your municipal councils decision. Not newly formed provincial legislation & targets. Provincial government with huge swaths of room for improvement on policy in tons of other fields that they have traditionally focused on to improve your lives, have instead spent a lot of time & resources trying to regulate the municipal here, well federal does all sorts of stuff. A big reason why I wish to strengthen municipal voting methods & your voice. Some aspects of provincials growth in powers, are to your benefit, my goal if elected, is to try and help get you better results.
Climate
C-- 8% of this topic CLI-01 F
Would you support ending fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship on property, media and events controlled by your municipality, to the extent the law allows? And would you advocate for the same at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission for BC Transit vehicles and shelters?
Why this grade: A refusal on both counts. Fossil fuel promotion stays in municipal media, on municipal property and at municipal events.
How this question is graded
Two commitments in one question, so the menu answer alone cannot reach the top. The menu sets a base and a Yes on the follow-up about advocating at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission raises it one step. Yes, both advertising and sponsorship = B, and A with the follow-up. Yes, advertising only or Yes, sponsorship only = C, and B with the follow-up. No = F, because ending the advertising is something the municipality controls outright. A follow-up written as free text rather than ticked is a judgement about the candidate and is graded by hand. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 6 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 C-
The Capital Regional District declared a climate emergency in 2019. How should your municipality treat climate action in its next four-year plan?
Why this grade: Climate is on the list without a place or a budget. The affordability condition is what the grade reflects.
How this question is graded
The overriding priority, other decisions should be tested against it = A. One of the top three priorities, with a dedicated budget = B. One priority among many, addressed where affordable = C-. Not a municipal priority = F. The ladder skips C on purpose: a dedicated budget is the line between a priority and a sentiment, so addressing climate only where affordable drops two steps rather than one. Handing the file to another order of government is F. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 C-
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Declines to rule the meetings out. The grade sits above a failing mark because what is refused is a limit on access rather than a measure on the ground.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. The No is C- rather than F because of the split the grading settled on: a plain No is C- where the question is about governance or conduct and F where it is about infrastructure, land use or funding. This one asks a candidate to give up a channel of access to themselves, which is conduct. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 —
Climate-related damage and adaptation costs increasingly fall on municipal budgets. Would you vote to have your municipality join other BC local governments in legal action to recover a share of those costs from major fossil fuel producers?
Why this grade: Not sure whether to join the action. The absence of a position keeps this out of the grade entirely.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if municipal costs are capped = B, because a conditional yes is B wherever one appears and a cap on municipal exposure lands there. No = F, because the question is about spending to recover costs, which is the funding side of the split CLI-03 sits on the other side of. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 F
Will you support a zoning bylaw amendment that prohibits the approval of any new or expanded commercial gas stations within municipal boundaries?
Why this grade: Would not change the bylaw. New and expanded stations stay on the table.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A land use question, so a No is F rather than C-. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 C
Extreme heat, wildfire smoke and wildfire risk all affect people living in existing homes. What would you have your municipality do to protect them? Select all you support.
Why this grade: Two measures, retrofit financing and a public campaign. Narrow, though the one that costs money is included.
How this question is graded
Up to five measures may be ticked. Four or more ticks including at least two of the three the municipality has to pay for (subsidized home assessments, grants or financing for retrofits, designated centres with guaranteed opening hours) = A. Three or more ticks = B. Two = C. One = C-. None of the above = F. The funding floor is there because a straight count of ticks would let a candidate reach the top on the two cheapest options, a vegetation bylaw and an information campaign, while committing no money to anyone actually living in an overheating home. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 2 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed) - 8% of this topic CLI-07 F
Are you supportive of phasing out fossil fuel powered tools such as leaf blowers (following the lead of Oak Bay and other municipalities across the country)?
Why this grade: No to phasing out the tools. Nothing would change about their use.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A regulatory phase-out, graded on the same footing as CLI-05. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 C
Large data centres can add substantial electricity and water demand. Under what conditions, if any, would you support a new data centre in your municipality?
Why this grade: Each case judged on its own. With no condition stated, the position cannot be tested against anything.
How this question is graded
Oppose all new data centres = A. Support only with waste-heat recovery and no net increase in potable water use = B. Support only under conditions set case by case = C. Support without special conditions = F. The two conditional options are separated by whether the condition binds. Waste-heat recovery and no net potable water increase is a testable commitment, so it takes the conditional-yes B. Conditions set case by case name nothing and commit to nothing, so it takes the C that a depends-case-by-case answer gets everywhere else. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-09 C
What are the primary climate risk(s) facing your community, and what actions would you take to support adaptation and resilience in your community?
Why this grade: Identifies a risk and a possible solution, but there is a lack of specifics past the baseline requirements and showing a general willingness to learn more.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names a climate risk specific to the municipality and specific actions against it, usually tied to data or a programme already running. B = one half only, a risk with no action or actions with no risk named, or backing an existing plan without either. C = general support with nothing local in it, a list of risks and nothing else, or the work handed to the region. C- = a risk gestured at and nothing more. F = an answer that is not about climate.
David Gauthier's answerI am advocating for one change at the provincial emergency minister level, I have to study fire department policy much further, and looking to meet with them to better understand their concerns. We are also located next to an ocean, there are some next level terraforming measures that with innovation & investment might clear concerns, not something I get enough time to study personally, too many other problems present on even the functional departments level outside municipal. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 C
Ensuring ecosystem connectivity is an important adaptation strategy for climate change. How do you plan to maintain or increase ecosystem features across the urban landscape?
Why this grade: Provides general positive views on the ecosystem connectivity, but lacks specifics past the baseline requirements.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = says what connectivity is and why it matters, with local examples, usually tied to data, a programme already running or the official community plan. B = practical examples with no local detail, or no link back to connectivity. C = general support with no project named, or an answer broad enough to fit any question. C- = agrees with the idea and offers nothing to do about it, or answers about something tangential. F is not used.
David Gauthier's answerI do enjoy natural overpasses where applicable, wind breaks with trees, dune decline with sandbag techniques, no issue looking over locations with such in mind & considering more strategic options around parks, and maybe review of our farming sectors & practices to see if awareness or programs/partnerships could be developed to strengthen ecosystems if possible/applicable. I also study tangential topics when time permits, I acknowledge real problems on this topic & many others though. - 8% of this topic CLI-11 F
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: Does not see a link between development and community climate resilience or its importance.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = yes, with how and why, naming strategies or a local policy that ties development to resilience. B = yes with relevant examples but no account of how they build resilience or how they get built. C = general support and nothing past what the building code already requires. C- = a bare yes, or support that doubts it is possible. F = does not accept that development can make a community more resilient.
David Gauthier's answerTons of ways to look at such, though believe we should focus on a better stabilized economy before focusing on opportunities relating this aspect of development if in the frame of municipal housing development yes? Multiple ways to approach better stability/resilience to climate, but I look at matters like the Strait of Hormuz going on, noting oil companies & governments making billions in profit all the same, government makes a profit in electric too yet developing in the more costly, less resilient way, also note CLI-04 is forcing topical discussion away from the actual harms being exploited over there by multiple governments with oil companies? I see scientific development more prevalent than mass social housing development opportunities, again if I understand the framing correctly. But other aspects of society feed into a societal compliance which this sort of development mindset can be seen to enforcing in its own way too. Not trying to be hyper critical here. - 8% of this topic CLI-12 F
The UBCM passed several resolutions saying municipalities should be able to have climate action lens and climate considerations in development and housing mandates. Do you support blue-green infrastructure upgrades as a requirement of developments for climate readiness?
Why this grade: Will not require these upgrades of new development. The municipality would keep approving buildings that leave stormwater and heat for someone else to deal with.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. Graded by RUSH from 2026-09-01; the mapping is recorded so the remaining rows match the ones already typed. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 3 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded CLI-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to climate concerns with respect to your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
As a citizen, asked some questions of UBCM, simply got ignored. I think it's fairly rare for them to even garner regular citizens attention, and their interest in even communicating with the public need improve, not to say that doesn't apply to many other organizations, departments or international groups either. But the frame in which climate is used here needs further examination, most people care for the ecosystem & human rights yes? I do see some studies even at the municipal level trying to broach them in interesting if not less practical ways to say scientific approaches, but our federal grants administered by fed to green projects & like SDTC handling such funds nationally too with various issues & green funds sent out internationally through agreements with Enviro Canada might have also got "lost"? Deeply disappointing stuff. But with the change to the 24/7 news cycle, such things get examined in extreme ways for ratings too. We need to focus on more honest interactions.
Arts
F- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 0 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: Answers “Unsure” and does not establish a meaningful municipal economic-development role for arts and culture; the follow-up expresses some interest in arts learning but not a defined municipal role.
How this question is graded
David Gauthier chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: I appreciate the arts, though feel we have placed too much focus on say galleries at the municipal level, though perhaps such extends in to tourism some, I like to see the learning opportunities either offered or promoted at the rec centre. I very much like to create things, even outside of coding, but focus on life saving and protective systems more now simply due to all the troubles I come across. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 0 / 3
If elected, what specific action will you commit to in your first year to strengthen your municipality's arts and cultural sector, and what measurable outcome should residents expect by the end of your four-year term?
Why this score: Suggests further study and greater public expression/voice, but provides no concrete first-year commitment or measurable four-year outcome. Provides no meaningful commitment. Does not demonstrate knowledge on the economic impact or importance or arts & culture.
How this question is graded
David Gauthier's answerThis too would require a lot of study to meet for this exact end in the four year term, though in say focusing on increasing such things as community boards & the public's voice at municipal hall, I would hope the opportunity for expression makes for a better place to foster understanding, arts, & culture. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 1 / 3
Cultural strategies are often adopted and then not implemented. Would you support a cultural space implementation framework with defined tools, timelines and public reporting? Select up to three components you would prioritize. Select your top three options.
Why this score: Selects public reporting only. This provides an accountability mechanism but does not establish the substantive cultural-space implementation framework contemplated by the question.
How this question is graded
David Gauthier chose 1 of 11 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-04 3 / 3
Arts organizations and event producers identify permitting, zoning and regulatory requirements as barriers to cultural activity. What would you commit to? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Selects simplified small-scale events, zoning review and disproportionate-cost review—three consequential regulatory mechanisms.
How this question is graded
David Gauthier chose 3 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - 16.67% of this topic ART-05 1 / 3
If preserving and securing long-term cultural space requires additional municipal support, which approaches would you support? Select up to five.
Why this score: Mentions possible zoning opportunities and says he would study cultural land trusts, but does not commit to implementing a defined financial or cultural-space intervention.
How this question is graded
David Gauthier chose 1 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 0 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Answers “Unsure” rather than supporting or opposing maintaining arts investment alongside core services.
How this question is graded
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 1 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: Uses the general “overall community benefit” standard without specifically prioritizing preservation or replacement of cultural space.
How this question is graded
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 1 / 3
Would you support municipal incentives to encourage private property owners and developers to provide affordable community & cultural space for nonprofits? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Says zoning incentives and property-tax relief might be possible and is willing to study them, but does not commit to a defined incentive mechanism.
How this question is graded
David Gauthier chose 1 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ART-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the arts in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Again, I like to create in all sorts of ways, it is freeing to pursue some forms of art, am all for freedom.
Rolling & cycling
C-- 15% of this topic ROL-01 F
Will you commit to funding and completing at least one 'missing link' in your municipality's Active Transportation Plan during your four-year term? If yes, which one would you prioritize?
Why this grade: Declines to say whether a missing link would be funded and completed during the term. The written comment for this topic raises signage and driver awareness but says nothing that explains the decline, so there is nothing to excuse it.
How this question is graded
Yes + Project surfaced = A; Yes + No specific project in mind, or vague project = B; Combination of No and/or a lack of project ideas = C-F, depending on severity.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 4 options - 15% of this topic ROL-02 F
Will you commit (or continue to commit) to physical protection (not paint alone) as the standard for all new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets in your municipality?
Why this grade: Will not make physical protection rather than paint the standard for new and upgraded cycling routes on busy streets. Rejecting the building standard outright is the bottom of this scale.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, except where physically impossible = B. No = F. Except where physically impossible is a condition that can be checked against a street, so it takes the conditional-yes B, and that is where the 19 rows graded before this rubric existed put it. A No is F because the question sets a construction standard, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 C
Will you oppose efforts (current and future) to remove, narrow or downgrade existing protected bike lanes and other all-ages-and-abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure in your municipality during your term?
Why this grade: Would judge each attempt to remove, narrow or weaken an existing lane separately rather than opposing them. Case by case commits to nothing and sets no test.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Depends, case-by-case = C. No = F. Depends case by case names no test and commits to nothing, which is the C it gets on CLI-08 and TRN-02; 13 of the 14 rows graded before this rubric existed agree. A No is F because the question is about keeping built infrastructure in place. An answer of N/A is a claim that the question does not apply to that municipality, which is a judgement about a candidate and is passed in by hand, like an excused decline. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 C-
What is the most important active transportation project in the municipality that you will be focused on progressing? Please provide your reasoning.
Why this grade: Refers to a safety matter raised with engineering by email and in person, and to concepts on road and bike lane layout said to address real situations, without describing any of them. No project can be identified from the answer, so there is nothing here for the question to weigh.
How this question is graded
A = Candidate is able to identify a project in their community and speak to its importance. B & C = Candidate has a general idea of something that can be improved but it isn't high on their priority list. F = Candidate does not think any improvements can/should be made.
David Gauthier's answerThe safety aspect I brought forward late Dec of 2025 by email to engineering, early Jan of 2026 in person, only one other safety aspect I got more pressing, and that's the creation of a medical device, have others in other fields too. I brought a few concepts I didn't see touched on yet regarding layout & design of the roads and bike lanes, they are reasoned sound arrangements addressing real scenarios. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 C-
If you have previously served in local government, what did you do to advance walking, rolling, cycling or transit? If you have not, what in your record outside of council shows the same commitment?
Why this grade: Has not served before, and offers emails to council on matters of concern and a conversation with engineering staff in person. That is contact rather than a record of advancing walking, rolling, cycling or transit.
How this question is graded
Free text, graded by a person on what the record shows about advancing walking, rolling, cycling or transit. A = delivered work, meaning budgets moved, plans adopted, infrastructure built, or a sustained organisational role with results behind it. B = substantial relevant advocacy or a directly relevant role, with less account of what it produced. C = a record from a different office, or advocacy confined to one location or issue, or no previous term with nothing offered in its place. C- = personal experience or unrelated work with no advocacy behind it. F = nothing relevant offered, or a record that closed the question rather than advancing it. The bands come from the 79 rows graded before 2026-09-20. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier's answerI have not previously served, though have approached council by email on aspects I was concerned with, and spoke with engineering in person.
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ROL-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the rolling and cycling in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Easily more than a thousand characters, the biggest consideration is false security in the present setup, an opportunity to add signage similar to the yellow/black hazard, image based attention guidance. & a safety consideration outside of mere design, that will offer more awareness to all participating on the road.
Walking
C- 10% of this topic WLK-01 C-
Municipalities, the CRD and the Province have all adopted targets to shift trips away from driving. Do you support meeting your municipality's adopted mode-shift targets, and would you vote for the necessary street-space and budgetary changes?
Why this grade: Shows little interest in multimodal planning or TDM.
How this question is graded
A = yes, even if it means removing driving lanes. C = yes, but not when it takes road space from drivers. F = no. Two steps between the two yeses because the adopted targets cannot be met without reallocating street space. Unsure and Decline to answer are both C- on this tab.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 C-
Which pedestrian safety problem in your municipality concerns you most, and what is the one change you would commit to in your first term to make walking safer and more attractive than driving for short trips?
Why this grade: Moves between provincial administration of seniors' services, the surfacing material used behind a local arena, and a preference for levelling existing sidewalks over building new ones. No pedestrian safety problem is settled on and the funding question is left for further study.
How this question is graded
Free text, graded by a person against the two things the question asks for: a named local problem, and one change committed to in a first term. A = both, with the change specific enough to be delivered and usually tied to funding, a named corridor or an existing plan. B = the problem is named and the response is concrete but soft, narrow, or a review rather than a change. C = a problem is named and nothing is committed to, or the framing of the question is declined. C- = no local problem is settled on, or the answer is a general gesture. F = nothing responsive is offered. The bands come from the 31 rows graded before 2026-09-20 and were applied to the remaining 51 on that date. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier's answerDisagree with what provincial is doing administratively to seniors, hence why I went to federal that funds the administrative, but yeah even sidewalks & medians help, study/survey if the material used more recently under the green benches (presumably to protect the public from falling from such) at the field behind Archie Browning Arena would be safer as the standard for sidewalks/medians in front of senior living complexes. Focusing funding to this aspect if found meaningful, followed by even sidewalks, not so focused on new side walks. (The funding aspect I need to study more) - 10% of this topic WLK-03 B
Sidewalk construction and maintenance is chronically underfunded across the region. Would you vote to increase the share of your municipality's transportation capital budget dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure?
Why this grade: Backs more sidewalk spending at less than double the current level. The money is real.
How this question is graded
Yes, a substantial increase, meaning more than double what is currently spent = A. Yes, a modest increase, meaning more but less than double = B, because that is a real commitment with a ceiling on it. No, the current amount is sufficient = F, because the question is about money for infrastructure, which is the funding side of the split. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 —
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Undecided on the question. Uncertainty counts as neither support nor refusal and the row drops out of the rollup.
How this question is graded
Yes, and I would pursue a permanent expansion or implementation = A. Yes, but only temporary, seasonal or pilot closures = B, because it is a yes with a stated limit on it. No = F, because the question is about street space, which is infrastructure. An answer of N/A is not on this list: it is a claim that the municipality has no downtown, main street or village centre, which is a judgement about a candidate and is passed in by hand. It has been left blank where that is true of the municipality and graded F everywhere the question plainly does apply. Unsure was typed C on two rows before 2026-09-13 and those rows were reset to blank on 2026-09-20, so the question now follows the shared policy. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 C
How will you work with parent groups, school staff, and municipal staff to assure that children’s safety is prioritized over convenience and flow of motor traffic?
Why this grade: You list speed signs, extra visual prompts, speed humps, poles at crosswalk entrances and a police presence around the start of the day, lunch and dismissal, and you offer to review every school and play park yourself. Walking the sites is worth something, but the question asks how you would work with parent groups, school staff and municipal staff, and none of those three appears anywhere in the answer.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names parents, school staff and municipal staff and attaches something concrete: an audit, measures, funding, timelines, or work delivered. B = one half only, consultation without measures or measures without consultation. C = points at an existing programme as enough. C- = vague, deflects, or denies the problem. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
David Gauthier's answerWe only used to have the 30km signs, could add more image prompts around the black/yellow caution bike lane slabs near schools to strengthen awareness, the speed-bumps around schools, and poles at the entrances to crosswalks around schools are great improvements, and I'm happy to personally review every school & play park to see those considerations made if not already. Outside that, on a case by case basis with schools, I'd also consider a modified police liaisons role a further accompaniment to those physical changes more meaningful, then something like cameras, so as their presence is outside the school near beginning of the school day, lunch, and end of day, shift considerations being randomized outside of those periods, but such is considered more on police budget & the schools own consideration/priorities. - 20% of this topic WLK-06 C-
What will you do, in a 4 year term, to identify, prioritize and set time-lines to assure that pedestrian infrastructure is improved to meet the needs of the older and disabled members of your community?
Why this grade: You would study the surface material used beneath the benches behind a local arena for possible use on sidewalks and medians near seniors complexes, and would fix uneven sidewalks before building new ones. One material trial does not address curb lips, crossing times, missing crosswalks or lighting, and there is no process here for finding out which locations older and disabled residents need fixed first.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names what to fix and the order it gets fixed in: an audit, named priorities, consultation with older and disabled residents, a timeline inside the term. B = real improvements with no process behind them, or continuing existing work. C = states the need and defers it, or one fix with no plan. C- = a problem with no action, or an answer about something else. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
David Gauthier's answerNoticed this yes, as outlined earlier, survey use case of that newer material set beneath the green benches behind Archie Browning Arena for use before the sidewalks/medians around seniors complexes. Outside that, focus on even sidewalks before new sidewalks.
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded WLK-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to walking or pedestrian activity in your municipality, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I am more for your liberty being respected by government, also for your safety, mode shifts or trends don't factor into much for I.
Governance
C-- 17% of this topic GOV-01 F
Do you support expanding shared or regional delivery of municipal services in the Capital Region?
How this question is graded
Yes/Partly = A, Unsure = C, No = F.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 C-
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: Will not support a regional service for local infrastructure. The answer keeps delivery inside the municipality, which is a position on how services are organised rather than a refusal to build or fund anything.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, only if full cost recovery is guaranteed for my municipality = B. No = C-. Full cost recovery is a named, checkable condition on a yes, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is C- rather than F because the question is about how services are organised and who runs them, which is the governance side of the split CLI-03 sits on the other side of. Unsure was typed C on three rows before 2026-09-13 and those rows were reset to blank on 2026-09-20, so the question now follows the shared policy. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 F
If elected, what three steps would you take to put your region or municipality on a firmer financial footing?
How this question is graded
“Real financial resilience comes from increasing the productivity of land that's already served by infrastructure: letting neighborhoods incrementally thicken, encouraging redevelopment where roads and pipes already exist, building more value per acre instead of more acres that need public maintenance.” The Strong Towns approach thinks about revenue vs liabilities and the cost of replacing infrastructure as a key driver of municipal financial success. Next-increment intensification or better allows improved use of pipes, roads, and wires, increasing the economic base for the city while lowering vacancies (examples, strongtowns.org , archive.strongtowns.org ). No credit was given for/against for either a) sharing costs with neighbouring governments or b) asking for money from higher levels of government, both of which may have additional merit beyond the boundaries of the muncipality. A-level (excellent) answer: 1. a comment about density being linked to financial wellbeing (revenue side), 2. a comment about efficient use of that revenue (expenses side), 3. thinking about infrastructure liabilities and how to pay for them given the intergenerational problems. B-level (good) answer considers some of these principles, but likely doesn't consider both revenue and expenses. C-level (mixed) - may have other ideas about arbitrary efficiencies and doesn't provide a mechanism for doing the work they propose (e.g. "fill up the reserve fund" -- with what money?). F - working in the opposite direction of resilience (e.g. arbitrary property tax increase caps), or doesn't answer the question (e.g. "my municipality is on firm financial footing").
David Gauthier's answerStudy the budget & present commitments & community plan extensively, a huge first step I'd want to get right. Second step would be to work with council to make sure various aspects within those bounds presently best serve residents. Thirdly I'd look to study & advocate for changes elsewhere to bring about a better footing faster. - 17% of this topic GOV-04 F
Do you commit to eliminating mandatory parking minimums for all land uses in your municipality by 2030?
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No/Decline = F. Parking minimums are pseudoscience that should be eliminated from city codes everywhere, and have been eliminated in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Ottawa, and others across North America without any negative consequences (archive.strongtowns.org )
David Gauthier chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-01 —
Do you support ensuring that local First Nations are represented in transit governance, such as on the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the CRD Transportation Commission?
Why this grade: Did not take a position, and wrote in the topic's comment box that the question is one to study further. A stated reason is not the same as silence, so the row is left out of the grade rather than scored as opposition.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. No = C-, on the same reasoning as GOV-02 and TRN-04: the question is about who sits at the table, not about what gets built or funded. No candidate has answered No, so that letter is a rule rather than a record of how anyone was graded. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 B
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
How this question is graded
A = significantly more consultation practices. B = somewhat more. C = the current amount is enough. Written answers take the same ladder: A commits to partnership with local First Nations, B wants better consultation without committing to a change, C questions whether more is wanted. Nothing here has been graded C- or F.
David Gauthier chose 1 of 7 optionsWould study our present practices for sure, look at cultural changes consideration as it relates zoning & restricted aspects and there might be more ways outside of that. Plus continue to advocate for a more default stance of inclusivity to alternative naming to signage for historical importance consideration, think our present course on consultation should be adjusted slightly.
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded GOV-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to governance, shared services, and municipal infrastructure, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I would look at reduced or deferred projects, service levels closely. Outside of that, consider local municipal bond fundraising & infrastructure renewal that could apply advertising changes in place of where we had none before, fix some things based on the interest in the public after gathering a census, another aspect to raise in newsletters, look at including more both paid business & free residential advertising options in various projects as a means to address costs & growth for everyone. Early 1900s, governments ran mostly on bond investment by the public. - Not graded REC-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to First Nation transit governance or consultation practices, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I'd like to study such further.
Livable CRD is a registered local elections advertising sponsor with Elections BC. Election advertising on this site is authorized by Livable CRD, [email protected]. Elections BC explains what that means in its Guide for Local Elections Third Party Sponsors in B.C. (PDF).