How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Garnett Humenick'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 Garnett Humenick 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?
The permit process.
My husband works in renovations, so I have watched what a slow file does to a family and small business. It is not just developers waiting. It is a couple adding a suite to help make the mortgage, someone building out back so a parent can age in place near the grandkids, a non-profit trying to get affordable housing built. Those are the homes Saanich needs most and they are the ones least able to wait. Every extra month is interest, rent somewhere else, a contractor who has moved on to another job.
Staff are not the problem! Council sets the direction, and council can set clear service standards and publish how long things actually take. Faster does not mean lower standards. - 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.
Garnett Humenick's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $1,200,000 Transit $450,000 Walking Infrastructure $350,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $350,000 Roadway Infrastructure $1,800,000 Policing $1,000,000 Fire & Emergency Services $1,000,000 Parks & Recreation $550,000 Arts & Culture $250,000 Climate Action & Environment $550,000 Unhoused Resident Services $1,500,000 Community-Based Clinics $1,000,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
Based on what I see and hear in Saanich, this is how I landed on these numbers.
Police and fire are matched, because when someone in a mental health or addiction crisis has nowhere to go, the call goes to a uniform, and that is the most expensive and least useful answer we have. Unhoused services and community clinics are how you shrink that call volume, and they are the two lines Saanich barely funds today. I think that makes the job easier for police and fire, not harder, and gets us to a more holistic community response.
Roadway is highest because deferring pipe is the most expensive way to look thrifty. Climate here means tree canopy and waterways, which is really parks by another name, so please read those two lines together. Transit is run by BC Transit, but the stops and the sidewalks to them belong to Saanich, and ours need upgrades.
Healthcare access
What Garnett Humenick 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.
We are in a health care crisis. It is not Saanich's fault and we cannot fix it alone.
Licensing is provincial. On July 6 this year the College of Physicians and Surgeons opened direct full licensure to doctors trained in seven countries, after doing the same for US-trained doctors in 2025. So there is movement.
Everyone else goes through Practice Ready Assessment BC. Ninety six seats a year province wide, and the return of service is tied to communities designated underserved, which Saanich is not. So the people already living here with medical degrees they cannot use are not getting a chance. Council can push the province on that.
Things council can control, space a new practice can afford, a municipal land lease to a non-profit operator, housing near the hospitals.
I believe the South Island should be doing this together. Thirteen municipalities each writing a letter isn't working. One region asking for the same thing is a position, and potential movement in a positive direction.
Transit
A- 20% of this topic TRN-01 A
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Supports each fare measure put forward, covering free travel for under 19s, cheaper fares for seniors, cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance and a lower cost regional monthly pass. Backing every measure on the list is the widest commitment the question allows.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 4 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 A
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: Backs removing general parking along the full length of busy transit and arterial streets and giving that space over to bus lanes, loading zones and walking and cycling. This is the strongest option the question offers and carries no limit on where it applies.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 A
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: Supports rapid transit priority on busy corridors, with parking and a traffic lane both on the table. The yes is given without conditions, which is the full commitment the question asks for.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 6 options - 10% of this topic TRN-04 A
Do you support the creation of a regional transportation authority?
Why this grade: Endorses the creation of a regional body with responsibility for transportation. The answer is a plain yes with nothing attached to it.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 —
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: Has not taken a position on new connections for buses and bicycles through parks, golf courses or public land where they would shorten trips substantially. With no view recorded either way, nothing is committed to on building the links.
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.
Garnett Humenick 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.
This is a hard section to answer, so let me explain.
Saanich is not one place. There are corridors here that work like a city, where I would say yes to bus lanes, yes to priority, yes to trading parking for people moving. And there is a lot of Saanich with no frequent transit to prioritize, where the honest answer is not yes or no, it is that the question has not arrived yet.
N/A is offered, but it is all or nothing. For Saanich the answer is yes over here and not yet over there.
Parks are their own thing. Ours are not spare land between destinations. They are the Colquitz watershed, Swan Lake, Mount Douglas, most of the connected habitat we have left. Your climate section asks how I would maintain ecosystem connectivity. This one asks whether I would run a route through a park. Sometimes those are the same.
Where I sound uncertain, it is because I am answering for a large community with very different needs.
Housing
C- HFL-01 7 / 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
Garnett Humenick chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 4 / 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.
Garnett Humenick chose 4 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-03 6 / 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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 3 / 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.
Garnett Humenick chose 3 of 8 options - HFL-05 3 / 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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 2 / 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.
Garnett Humenick 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.
Garnett Humenick 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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 5 / 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.
Garnett Humenick chose 5 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 1 / 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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-12 6 / 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.
Garnett Humenick chose 2 of 6 options - HFL-10 6 / 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.
Garnett Humenick's answer● Sat down with the outreach workers and operators in Saanich, and surrounding areas and brought a clear path for staff to explore and see what is already available but not being used to potential
● A small fix for housing; Right now Saanich website / pages contradict I would like an easy overhaul with tech. One clear easy to find, rules and guidlines for what a suites and home upgrades, applied the same way from one file to the next.
● A count of what is sitting empty; suites built and closed up, floors of older buildings out of service, apartment and condo vacancy. A list of land Saanich already owns that could hold non-market housing. At least two conversations with churches or non-profits unsure of the path to housing. Approval time data published by permit type. A staff report on what service targets are realistic, aiming at 30 days for the smaller scale and 180 for the big.
● Somewhere for people to go. Supportive housing built, in Saanich. With a path to holistic community based healing for addiction and mental health responses.
● Suites that sat empty back in use, because we made the legal path cheap and the risk survivable.
● Non-market housing built on land we donated or a partner brought.
● The older, cheaper apartment buildings repaired instead of replaced, with the same tenants still in them.
● You can build a townhouse without a two-year rezoning.
● Approval targets adopted, met, and reported when missed. A basement suite and a 20-unit building are no longer in the same lineup.
When someone in a mental health or addiction crisis has nowhere to go, the call goes to a uniform. That is the most expensive and least useful answer we have. Housing people is long term the most affordable thing we can do as a community, it takes strain from services and leads to more tax payers. I do not think there should be a bonus. The plan is the plan, and exceptions made project by project dismiss the work the community, staff and council put into writing it.
Climate
B- 8% of this topic CLI-01 —
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: Undecided on the question. Uncertainty is scored as neither support nor refusal, so this drops out of the climate grade.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 6 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 B
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 gets a budget of its own. The plan treats it as important rather than as decisive.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 —
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Declined and said why in the written climate comments, describing an unlikely meeting they did not want recorded against them later. Left ungraded because the reasoning is on the record and the surrounding answers are engaged.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 B
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: Agrees to the action within a cost limit. Real support, bounded by a cap the case may or may not respect.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 A
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: Yes, without reservation. The answer treats the zoning power as the right instrument rather than a last resort.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 A
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: Picks four, weighted toward the ones the municipality has to pay for. That is a serious commitment to people already living in the affected homes.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 4 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: Rejects the phase out. The answer leaves gas powered equipment in use with no alternative measure offered in its place.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 A
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: Would block any new data centre. Nothing in the answer leaves room for an exception.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-09 B
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 relevant climate risks and touches on general strategies to mitigate it. Acknowledges that this is an incomplete answer.
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.
Garnett Humenick's answerTwo that worry me are erosion and wildfire.
Our riverbanks are giving way as the storms get harder, and the Colquitz carries all of that sediment straight into salmon habitat, so every bank we lose costs us twice. And we have a lot of dry underbrush sitting in parks and greenways right up against neighbourhoods.
Smoke is the other half of that, having been the first aid person on a work site for twenty years, I think a lot about who gets hurt first in a smoky August. It is usually kids, older folks and anyone with a bad chest.
What I would really like to see is the W̱SÁNEĆ Nations and Saanich Parks doing this work together, as a paid ongoing crew. Not just consultation, actual jobs. This land was tended with hands for a very long time before we let it grow in, and that knowledge is still here and wants to be shared.
I do not think that is the whole answer, but it is one of the pieces I would push for. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 A
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: Shows strong support for ecosystem connectivity and offers a concrete example in Saanich of how this takes shape and where to focus efforts.
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.
Garnett Humenick's answerThere is water running through the middle of Saanich, from Elk Lake down the Colquitz, Panama Flats, with Swan Lake feeding in, and out to the inlets. We manage those as separate parks. They are one corridor, and it is the best one we have.
Panama Flats is where I would start. Saanich bought it for flood control and there is still no settled plan. I would want the wetland restored and the natural stream re-established, worked out with community, park users, and city planning all working together.
Also widen the riparian buffers along the Colquitz and its creeks. Keep the mature canopy, because you cannot replant a hundred year old tree. And watch the small approvals, because that is usually how a connection gets broken.
We have a salmon bearing river running lets help it thrive ;) - 8% of this topic CLI-11 A
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: Clearly connects development along senstive ecosystems to opportunities to improve resiliency.
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.
Garnett Humenick's answerYes. Every building we approve is here for fifty years, so it is a lot cheaper to get this right before it exists.
What I would want is a clear line to developers well before they design anything. Here is what we expect near a watercourse, here is why, and here is what it costs. Up front, in one place, the same for everyone.
Development near Swan Lake or along the Colquitz is the moment when there is money and machinery on site to fix something. That is when you widen a riparian buffer, put in real stormwater retention so the storm does not hit the creek all at once, and replant a bank that is washing out. If we treat every project near water as only a threat, we get none of that.
Certainty is cheaper than negotiation. It is the same argument I make about permits, and it protects the creek better, because a rule everyone knows does not get traded away one allowance at a time. - 8% of this topic CLI-12 A
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?
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.
Garnett Humenick 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.
Same note I made on transit. Saanich is not one place, and a lot of these questions ask me to commit the whole district to something that fits some neighbourhoods and not others.
Blue-green infrastructure is a good example. Along the Colquitz or near Swan Lake I would want it. On a flat infill lot nowhere near a watercourse, the same requirement is cost added to a home for very little gain, and that is how a good idea gets a bad name.
What I would rather do is set it by area, tied to the watershed and the real flood and heat risk, so a builder knows before they design and a neighbourhood knows why it applies to them.
I declined to answer Cli-03 because I see no reason fossil fuel lobbyist would ever want to meet with me but just in case and for whatever reason I would not want a "gotcha" from a questionnaire floating out there in the future ;)
Arts
A- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 3 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: Explicitly identifies the creative sector as an economic-development sector, connects municipal action to employment and local spending, and identifies film permitting and infrastructure as municipal priorities.
How this question is graded
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Film and television is an industry, not a nice to have. It employs people here, has a union, and spends money locally on every shoot day. Our Economic Development Strategy lists education, healthcare and tourism as target sectors. The creative sector is not, and it should be. Naming a sector decides where staff time goes.
Permission that works. I spent twenty years in film and television. A production choosing between here and somewhere else is often choosing on how fast a permit comes back and whether anyone answers the phone on a Sunday.
Money that is steady rather than heroic. The Vancouver Island South Film Commission should be a line item, not an annual request. We already pay into the CRD Arts and Culture Support Service and hold a seat on the Arts Commission. Stop treating arts as the first thing cut and the last thing restored.
Space is the other half of it, it is much harder to create and support creativity without it. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 3 / 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: Provides a specific first-year film-infrastructure action and measurable four-year outcomes through published permits/shoot days and a studio or progress toward one.
How this question is graded
Garnett Humenick's answerFilm infrastructure is something I understand.
A production needs somewhere to put a basecamp. Trucks, honeywagons, catering, power, washrooms, enough parking that a crew is not filling a residential street at 5am. Saanich has the space and no standing arrangement for it. I would want a list of municipal sites that can take a basecamp, with rates and rules published, so a location manager can price a Saanich shoot in an afternoon and we become a contender. Being easy to work with along with our beautiful locations is how to attract productions.
BC film is a $3.4 billion industry employing around 60,000. The south Island holds a small share. The region offers great tax incentives but has still been turned down Amazon, Netflix and Paramount for lack of infrastructure.
The bigger piece is studio space. We simply need one!
By year four the measure is film permits and shoot days counted and published, plus either a studio or progress on one. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 2 / 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 cultural-space inventory, zoning/permitting/regulatory review and measurable implementation targets/timelines, providing a strong administrative implementation framework.
How this question is graded
Garnett Humenick chose 3 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 a broad package of consequential permitting, event, coordination, zoning and disproportionate-cost reforms.
How this question is graded
Garnett Humenick chose 8 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - 16.67% of this topic ART-05 3 / 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: Supports long-term leases, municipal funding leverage, regional infrastructure funding and cultural land-trust mechanisms, while proposing affordable access to underused municipal and community spaces.
How this question is graded
Garnett Humenick chose 5 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 3 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Explicitly supports maintaining or growing arts and culture investment and states that arts should not be the first area cut or last restored.
How this question is graded
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 3 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: Supports replacement cultural space or an equivalent community benefit when redevelopment affects existing cultural space.
How this question is graded
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 3 / 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: Supports property-tax incentives for long-term affordable space, nonprofit property-tax relief and a municipal mechanism for short-term use of vacant commercial space.
How this question is graded
Garnett Humenick chose 3 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.
The local economy thrives when industry's thrive. I was the craft service and first aid person on sets for twenty years, which means I was the one buying the coffee. Every day, locally, along with the food, the ice and the paper goods.
That is the part people do not picture when they think about film. A shoot buys lumber from a yard here and builds a set out of it, then pays carpenters, electricians, painters and drivers to do the work. Fabric stores, 2nd hand stores the list goes on and on. Crew from out of town fill hotels. Short term rentals get used. People eat in local restaurants when they wrap. Homeowners and businesses get paid for the location itself. This is trades, wages and money that stays in the neighbourhood. None of that lands on a spreadsheet as film revenue. It lands as a busier hardware store and a few more people working.
Rolling & cycling
B- 15% of this topic ROL-01 B
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: Commits to finishing one crossing at a municipal boundary jointly with the neighbouring council, both sides funded and built to the same standard within the term, and names the Saanich edges with View Royal and with Oak Bay as where routes currently dump riders into traffic. A sound diagnosis and a workable method, though no single crossing is settled on.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: The one I would prioritize is a boundary rather than a stretch of road. Our routes end where Saanich ends, and a person on a bike does not stop there, they just get put into traffic in the next municipality. The Saanich and View Royal edge and the Saanich and Oak Bay edge are both like that.
I do not think those are fixable inside our own Active Transportation Plan, because half of every one of them belongs to someone else. So what I would push for is sitting down with the neighbouring councils and picking one crossing to finish together, both sides funded and built to the same standard, in the same term.
It is the same concept I made about shared services. We plan separately and then wonder why the network does not join up.
I would rather we finished one crossing properly with a neighbour than built another good stretch that ends at a boundary. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 C
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: Unsure whether physical protection should be the standard for new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets. That is the decision that determines whether a route works for people of all ages and abilities, and no position is taken on it.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 A
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: Commits to opposing efforts to remove, narrow or downgrade protected cycling infrastructure already built. The answer is unqualified.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 A
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: Names the five point intersection where Interurban, Wilkinson and Helmcken meet, with short crossing times and long delays that serve nobody well, and commits to pushing the existing concept forward. Treats it as a corridor rather than one intersection, including signal timing that has to be settled with the neighbouring council before the design is finished, and warns against fixes that push traffic onto streets with no sidewalk.
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.
Garnett Humenick's answerThe five point intersection where Interurban, Wilkinson and Helmcken meet.
I live at it, so I know how it behaves. It is dangerous, the crosswalk times are short, the delays are long, and it does not work well for anyone, especially the people in cars. Saanich has started consultation and has " a concept "of a plan, and I will push it forward.
I would also think of it as a corridor rather than one intersection. Helmcken runs into View Royal, and retiming our signals without matching the lights at Burnside just keeps traffic stuck. That takes a conversation with the neighbouring council before the design is finished, not after.
When designing it for everyone crossing, walking, cycling, busing and driving. Saanich needs to watch what the fix does to the neighbourhood not just the traffic at the light. The ideas of closures and traffic changes that leave people up Hastings unable to get out of their driveways, or push traffic past a school with no sidewalk, are not good options. Those sweeping design decisions are what turn people against a good project. That is the governance piece I think Saanich residents are most frustrated with. - 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: Describes family habits, riding with the children and taking the bus on purpose, and questions whether commitment has to look like activism. Honest, but the question asks for a record of advancing this work and none is given.
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.
Garnett Humenick's answerThis asks about a record, but does commitment have to look like activism?
I have not served. Like most people here I care about the environment, our health, and I like getting places easily. Saanich is made up of humans doing this without calling it anything.
I am privileged. Good fortune is the reason I have time to run at all, or to fill out this questionnaire, and why I have a garage with a bike, in some cases two, per person. I had a pedal assist with the stroller attachment when the kids were small and lost a lot of weight riding it around. Kids are now getting confident on the road, and before long my oldest will get himself around on the bike and bus. Freedom for both of us!
We take the bus on purpose, so they know how to get somewhere confidently without fear.
That is my record, and probably not the commitment that will get a good grade. We choose the bus. Plenty of people in Saanich are on it because there is nothing else, and those are the ones I will be listening to.
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.
I will not be advocating to pull out bike lanes that are already in. That money is spent, and ripping them out spends it twice.
I also do not want another Mann Rd. People need parking, consultation, and agreement.
Routes run through different neighbourhoods, different community groups, then different municipalities, and they stop making sense at every line. That is what I would bring, sitting down with our neighbours to help make sense in the connections with starting new plans and spending more money.
Parents can tell you the exact corner where safety goes wrong. redirecting traffic and traffic calming should not mean people speed through school zones, each neighbourhood has its own issues that need their own fixes.
Rural Saanich - kids need to be able to get on a school bus without road rage from people using the "back roads" for short cuts. I want provincial safety money that Saanich can match, and infrastructure considered out there as we add housing elsewhere.
Walking
B- 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 a lack of commitment to multimodal planning and transportation demand management.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 A
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: Names darkness as the reason short trips turn into car trips for much of the year, with the winter share of crashes involving people on foot to back it up. Commits to lighting the routes children use, the shared paths and the stretches of the regional trail that do not feel safe after dark.
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.
Garnett Humenick's answerLighting. It is dark in the mornings and dark again by eight, and if we want people out of their cars they need to be seen and to feel safe.
In summer my kids can go anywhere. In winter it is not safe to have them ride to the rec centre after dusk, so we drive. ICBC says 42 per cent of crashes involving pedestrians in BC happen between October and January.
The I would commit lighting the routes kids use. School walking routes and the shared paths, including the stretches of the Galloping Goose that do not feel safe after dark.
A path people are willing to walk at night because they feel safe, is the path that gets used. - 10% of this topic WLK-03 A
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: Supports a substantial increase, more than double today's spending on sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure. A clear yes at the strongest level offered.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 F
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Does not support expanding pedestrian priority or car free streets in the town centre. A straight no to the question asked.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 A
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 are correct: parents know the dangers, and most are ready and willing to meet a Council member and/or municipal staff, on the street, where they can point out the sites of the problems they worry about. Further, any plan parents, staff and Council support requires Council support for funding and timelines for when the work will be done. /
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.
Garnett Humenick's answerI am one of those parents! It is a lot of why I am running.
The parents who most need this are working and cannot make the meeting where it gets decided. Parents already know. They can tell you the corner, the time of day, the driver who takes the turn too fast. That information is free and waiting to be collected. I would ask the schools to go to their PACs first, so the consultation and design start from what parents already see, instead of spending the money first and getting back ideas that will not work or do not account for the school zone.
And I would double check every "fix" for where impatient drivers go next. Closing North Rd at Hastings calmed the traffic and made it safer for kids walking to Strawberry Vale, which is great. But drivers in a hurry started going the back way down Prospect Lake Road rather than wait at the five way, and that put Prospect Lake Elementary kids at risk. One school got safer and another got less safe. - 20% of this topic WLK-06 A
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 have a good understanding of how poor pedestrian infrastructure poses serious risks for older adults and persons with disabilities. Good sidewalks, safe crosswalks and intersections with lights timed to allow those who walk slowly to get across the street before the light changes, curb cuts without lips that pose tripping hazards, smooth pavement of sidewalks, sidewalks that aren't too narrow for people to pass one another, and other factors you mention are essential to help people feel confident about walking to their destinations.
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.
Garnett Humenick's answerI was the first aid person on a work site for twenty years. I know what a fall does to someone at seventy five. It is not a scrape. It is a hip, then a hospital, then a bed at their daughter's, and often they never live alone again.
In four years I would want so many things done.
Longer crossing times at the lights. Our signals are timed for a walking pace a lot of people cannot make, and lengthening them costs almost nothing.
Benches. Somewhere to sit every few blocks changes how far a person can go.
Bus stops with a level landing, somewhere to sit and a proper connection to the sidewalk, starting with the routes identified that older people use most.
Curb cut lips and tilting panels fixed, clear warnings where the ground is uneven and we have not got to it yet.
My parents are coming up on seventy. I want a Saanich where they keep getting themselves around.
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 put unsure on the mode shift question and I want to explain, because it is not a no to sidewalks.
Saanich is big. If I lived in Victoria or View Royal this would be an easier question. If you live out by Prospect Lake and your kid plays soccer at UVic, you are driving. There are not enough grocery stores in most neighbourhoods to shop without a car either, and if the rec centre is a drive away, families still need to get there.
So I would vote for sidewalks, crossings and lighting, and I would fund them. I am less sure about meeting a target by taking out driving lanes across a district this spread out, and I do not want to say yes to something to get a good grade.
Mode shift will happen in Saanich when the alternative works and goes the whole distance.
Governance
B- 17% of this topic GOV-01 A
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 A
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: A yes to a shared regional service that would design, build and keep up local municipal infrastructure. No conditions were placed on it.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 A
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").
Garnett Humenick's answerSaanich has a $697 million infrastructure deficit and we are underspending on renewal by about $51 million a year. None of my three steps are exciting.
First, treat the deficit as a today problem. Fund renewal on a schedule and report on it every year, so it does not get quietly deferred again. Deferring pipe just hands our grandchildren a bigger bill with interest.
Second, grow what we are taxing. Every year a project sits in approvals is a year it pays nothing while our costs go up. Faster approvals are a revenue measure, not just a courtesy.
Third, look at what we could do together across the region. Thirteen municipalities each buying, engineering and administering separately is a lot of overhead for a region this size. I would want shared delivery where it genuinely saves money, with the savings named out loud so people can check.
I will not promise a tax number I have not seen the budget for. But I will not balance it on the backs of the people who already work for us. - 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 )
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-01 A
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: Yes to local First Nations representation in transit governance, including both regional commissions. The answer sets no conditions.
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 A
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.
Garnett Humenick chose 1 of 7 options
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 answered no on committing to remove all parking minimums by 2030, and I want to explain that, because it is not a no to the idea.
I would be one of nine. Promising to deliver something by a date is really promising you eight other people's votes, and I am not willing to do that to get a better grade here.
I also think this one belongs with the community and not just with us. Parking is something people feel strongly about from both directions, and I have been on both sides of it. I know what a parking requirement does to a family trying to add a suite. Three stalls on one lot is not nothing. I also know what it feels like in a neighbourhood where the bus is not really an option yet.
So I would work on it, area by area, alongside transit community members. I would rather move slower and bring people with me than win the vote and lose the neighbourhood. - 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.
Respectfully, I think this section not being graded is problematic, and I hope every candidate answers it. Leaving reconciliation as the optional box at the end of the page says something about where this group puts it.
Consultation is where most municipalities stop. Being asked what you think about a plan already drafted is not the same as being in the room while it is written.
That is why I support First Nations representation in transit governance, and I would want that same standard everywhere.
What I want from Saanich is a real commitment to bring every community along with kindness, not just to meet the requirement. Show up to relationships that are not about a file. Bring the invitation early, while the plan can still change. And pay people for their time.
I am a mixed Indigenous woman who grew up here. Anti-Indigenous sentiment in this region is rising dramatically, again. That is why I feel so strongly this should be graded.
Thank you for reading!
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).