How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Harjas Popli'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 Harjas Popli 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?
If I could change one policy in Saanich, I would introduce an Affordability and Value-for-Money Policy for major municipal spending.
Before approving significant new expenditures, Council should clearly understand the need, alternatives considered, long-term operating costs, impact on property taxes, and measurable benefit to residents. We should also regularly review existing programs to determine what is working, what can be delivered more efficiently, and what can reasonably be delayed without compromising essential services.
Residents I speak with are increasingly concerned about affordability and rising property taxes. I believe Saanich can continue investing in housing, infrastructure, parks, transportation and community services while being more disciplined with taxpayers’ money.
Responsible spending is not about doing less. It is about setting priorities, measuring results, and ensuring every public dollar delivers real value to the community. - 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.
Harjas Popli's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $2,000,000 Transit $750,000 Walking Infrastructure $1,000,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $750,000 Roadway Infrastructure $1,250,000 Policing $500,000 Fire & Emergency Services $750,000 Parks & Recreation $750,000 Arts & Culture $250,000 Climate Action & Environment $750,000 Unhoused Resident Services $750,000 Community-Based Clinics $500,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
Here is my logic to the above allocation:
Housing: $2.0M: This should be the largest single allocation. Saanich's Affordable Housing Reserve is projected to have about $3.28 million at the beginning of 2026, but only $100,000 in new contributions during 2026. At the same time, Saanich reports that 40% of renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, and the Province has ordered Saanich to achieve at least 4,610 net new homes over five years. An additional $2 million annually could substantially strengthen the Affordable Housing Reserve, support non-market housing partnerships, and leverage provincial/federal funding.
Transit: $750K: Saanich's 2026 capital budget currently includes about $455,200 for its Transit Infrastructure Improvement Program and $580,400 for McKenzie RapidBus implementation. Meanwhile, the entire Victoria Regional Transit System has a 2026/27 budget of about $223.7 million, with local governments contributing approximately $93.6 million. My $750,000 would focus on what Saanich can directly influence: better bus stops, accessibility, shelters, RapidBus infrastructure and partnerships for improved service.
Walking: $1.0M: Saanich's 2026 transportation plan contains about $2.50 million for the Sidewalk Installation Program, plus $350,000 for sidewalk rehabilitation. There are still neighbourhoods where basic pedestrian connectivity is missing. An extra $1 million annually could accelerate sidewalks, safer crossings, accessibility improvements and routes to schools and transit.
Rolling & Cycling: $750K: The existing Cycling Infrastructure Program is approximately $1.55 million for 2026. Another $750,000 is significant enough to speed up missing network connections, but I would prioritize projects based on safety, demonstrated use, community input and value for money rather than building infrastructure simply to meet a target.
Roadway Infrastructure: $1.25M: Saanich maintains roughly 180 km of major/collector roads, 380 km of residential roads and 32 bridges. The 2026 budget includes approximately $1.88 million for pavement renewal and $2 million for short-term implementation of the Road Safety Action Plan. Roads remain essential infrastructure for residents, transit, emergency vehicles, businesses and cyclists alike.
Policing: $500K: Saanich Police already has a substantial budget: approximately $62.86 million in total 2026 operating and capital expenditures, while its net core budget rises 6.2% to $53.99 million. I would therefore allocate a relatively modest portion of the new money, targeted toward visible community policing, traffic enforcement, crime prevention and areas where measurable public-safety outcomes can be demonstrated.
Fire & Emergency Services: $750K: Fire Protection has approximately $32.44 million budgeted in 2026, including capital, and Saanich's Emergency Program has another approximately $555,000. With growing demands from population growth, extreme weather and emergency preparedness, an additional $750,000 is reasonable for frontline capacity, equipment and community resilience.
Parks & Recreation: $750K: Saanich has approximately $74.05 million in 2026 operating and capital spending for Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Its parks include more than 100 km of trails, alongside playing fields, courts and playgrounds. I would direct additional funding particularly toward maintaining existing assets and improving access to recreation for youth, seniors and families before undertaking expensive new facilities.
Arts & Culture: $250K: Saanich's Community Services Division has a net budget of about $2.51 million covering seven areas, including Cultural Arts, diversity and equity, community events, youth/senior services and public art. $250,000 is meaningful additional funding for local cultural organizations, festivals and events that bring Saanich's diverse communities together.
Climate Action & Environment: $750K: Saanich began 2026 with approximately $2.11 million in its Climate Action Reserve, but the planned annual contribution is only about $258,100. I would focus the additional $750,000 on practical projects with measurable local benefits: urban forest protection, heat resilience, water and ecosystem protection, energy efficiency, and projects that can also reduce municipal operating costs.
Unhoused Resident Services: $750K: The CRD's 2025 Point-in-Time count identified 1,749 people experiencing homelessness in Greater Victoria. This is primarily a regional/provincial issue, so rather than creating another municipal bureaucracy, I would use Saanich's funding to partner with established organizations for outreach, basic needs, supportive housing and pathways to permanent housing.
Community-Based Clinics: $500K: Healthcare is primarily a provincial responsibility, so I would not attempt to create a municipal health system. Instead, this could leverage partnerships with Island Health, non-profits and community facilities for services such as seniors' health, mental-health outreach and preventative care. Saanich already has an example of this approach: Gordon Head Recreation Centre hosts Island Health outpatient neurological services.
Healthcare access
What Harjas Popli 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.
Saanich should be a facilitator and partner, not attempt to replace the provincial healthcare system. Where a credible non-profit primary-care provider is ready to operate a clinic, I would consider municipal land or space, zoning assistance, expedited approvals, permissive tax exemptions and below-market leases where the public benefit is clear.
The objective should be straightforward: use municipal tools to help residents gain access to primary care while ensuring provincial healthcare funding and qualified healthcare organizations remain responsible for delivering the clinical service.
Transit
B- 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: Commits to all four measures on offer: 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. Nothing on the list is left unticked, which is the fullest answer available here.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 4 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 B
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: Supports clearing general street parking from frequent transit corridors and main arterials, but only during peak hours. Restricting the change to peak hours is a real and checkable limit on the yes rather than an open ended one.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 C-
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: Would move quickly on transit priority provided no lane of general traffic is given up. The exception removes the one measure the question is testing, which keeps this below a conditional yes while stopping short of outright opposition.
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.
Harjas Popli 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: Supports standing up a regional transportation authority for the area. No condition is set on the yes.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 B
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: Accepts new links reserved for buses and bicycles across public land, with the protection of mature trees set as the condition. The condition can be tested against a construction plan, so the commitment still holds in practice.
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.
Harjas Popli 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.
To respond to TRN-05, I Yes if no mature trees are lost, however, the strategy might different for bus-only and Bike-only.
Transit has to become frequent, reliable, accessible and convenient enough that people choose it because it works for them. I support stronger regional coordination, better connections between municipalities, improved shelters and accessibility, and transit priority where the evidence demonstrates a clear benefit. Transportation decisions should consider all users rather than treating drivers, transit riders, pedestrians and cyclists as opposing groups.
Housing
B- 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
Harjas Popli chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 8 / 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.
Harjas Popli chose 8 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.
Harjas Popli 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.
Harjas Popli chose 6 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.
Harjas Popli 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.
Harjas Popli 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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-08 2 / 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.
Harjas Popli 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.
Harjas Popli chose 7 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 6 / 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.
Harjas Popli 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.
Harjas Popli 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.
Harjas Popli's answerFirst year;
• Establish or confirm baseline capacity to undertake enhancements involving time targets. Do they fall neatly into more straightforward categories like smaller and less complex or larger applications with greater complexity? Does Saanich Planning and Engineering and Inspections have existing capacity to adjust workflows? How can we innovate and expand such that achieving reduction in administrative burden does not impact public health, safety, or the environment?
• Then, develop clear approval-time targets and public reporting; implement Saanich's tenant-protection measures consistently; identify municipal/non-profit land opportunities for affordable housing; and prioritize family-sized, accessible, rental and non-market housing.
• Push for pre-zoning and simpler approvals where projects already comply with the OCP, while keeping engineering, safety, environmental and servicing standards rigorous.
• Use municipal land, fee reductions, bonus density and partnerships with BC Housing, CMHC and non-profits to leverage outside dollars rather than putting the full cost on Saanich taxpayers.
By the end of four years;
• Meet or be on track to exceed Saanich's provincial housing target, with a healthier rental vacancy rate and a larger share of homes that ordinary families, seniors, renters and first-time buyers can actually use.
• Coordinate housing growth with roads, sidewalks, transit, parks, utilities and emergency services so growth does not outpace infrastructure.
• Success to me is not simply the number of approvals; it is more homes, greater choice, shorter and predictable approvals, stronger tenant protection and better affordability outcomes.
Climate
B- 8% of this topic CLI-01 A
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: Both advertising and sponsorship are ruled out, and the candidate would carry that to transit. The answer leaves nothing on the table.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Harjas Popli chose 1 of 5 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 among the top three, funded from the start. Short of the overriding treatment and well clear of a vague commitment.
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.
Harjas Popli 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 give the undertaking. Nothing here rules out the meetings, and the grade reflects a conduct standard left unmet.
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.
Harjas Popli 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: Backs the action subject to a spending limit. The support is genuine and the limit is what keeps it off the top grade.
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.
Harjas Popli 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: Says no to the zoning change. Nothing would prevent a new or larger station being approved.
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.
Harjas Popli 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: Chooses all five measures. The three that cost money are among them, so the answer is not carried by the cheap options.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 5 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed) - 8% of this topic CLI-07 A
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: Supports the measure. A bylaw is accepted as the way to get there.
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.
Harjas Popli 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: Conditions would be decided per proposal. With no standard named, the answer offers no guarantee about power or water.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-09 A
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: Clearly identifies risks and provides concrete strategies grounded in their local context.
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.
Harjas Popli's answerThe major risks I see are extreme heat and wildfire smoke, intense rainfall and flooding, drought and wildfire, and risks to infrastructure and ecosystems from a changing climate.
I would prioritize practical adaptation: accessible cooling and clean-air centres; improved drainage and stormwater systems; protection and expansion of tree canopy; FireSmart measures; resilient municipal infrastructure; targeted retrofit programs; and emergency preparedness focused especially on seniors and vulnerable residents.
Climate resilience should also be incorporated into long-term asset management so we reduce future emergency and replacement costs rather than simply responding after damage occurs. - 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: Identifies clear, actionable strategies to improve resilience through development relevent to their local context.
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.
Harjas Popli's answerI would implement Saanich's Urban Forest and biodiversity strategies, protect important natural areas and waterways, and improve connections between parks, streams, tree canopy and habitat.
New development should be used as an opportunity to add native vegetation, trees, permeable surfaces and green infrastructure and, where possible, reconnect fragmented ecosystems. I also support monitoring canopy and ecosystem health so Council can measure whether policies are actually producing results. - 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: Shows clear support for the idea and connects it to several concrete actions relevant to their local context.
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.
Harjas Popli's answerYes. Development can increase resilience when it incorporates good stormwater management, shade and tree canopy, permeable surfaces, efficient buildings, passive cooling, appropriate air filtration and flood-resilient design.
Requirements should be proportionate to the project and clearly established in advance so climate readiness is incorporated efficiently rather than added unpredictably late in the approval process. - 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.
Harjas Popli 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.
Climate policy should be practical, measurable and conscious of affordability. I support actions that protect people, infrastructure and the natural environment while leveraging provincial and federal programs and avoiding unnecessary duplication or costs for residents.
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 arts and culture as contributing to local economic activity and proposes municipal facilitation through regulatory reform, partnerships, spaces and cultural programming.
How this question is graded
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: The municipality should be a facilitator, partner and enabler for arts and culture.
That means reducing unnecessary permitting and zoning barriers, making municipal spaces more accessible, supporting festivals and cultural events, partnering with non-profits, and helping protect or create affordable cultural spaces.
Arts and culture contribute to local economic activity, tourism, vibrant neighbourhoods and a stronger sense of community. I would focus on using municipal tools, partnerships and available grants effectively, while ensuring support is transparent, measurable and balanced with other core municipal priorities. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 2 / 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: Commits to an implementation framework and identifies measurable areas of progress over four years, but the first-year action and specific four-year targets remain broadly defined.
How this question is graded
Harjas Popli's answerIn my first year, I would support creating an implementation framework for arts and cultural spaces, beginning with an updated inventory of cultural assets, vulnerable spaces and barriers faced by local organizations.
By the end of four years, residents should be able to see measurable progress through clearer permitting standards, fewer unnecessary regulatory barriers, stronger partnerships with cultural non-profits, and more stable opportunities for affordable cultural and community space.
I would also seek to leverage grants, partnerships and existing municipal assets so increased support for arts and culture does not automatically mean increased property taxes. - 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 an inventory, long-term affordability/stability tools and implementation targets, providing meaningful implementation mechanisms but without the higher-impact structural partnership tool or public reporting component.
How this question is graded
Harjas Popli 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: Supports a comprehensive set of permitting, zoning and regulatory reforms including service standards, simplified events, coordination and review of disproportionate nonprofit costs.
How this question is graded
Harjas Popli 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 municipal and regional funding, leveraging outside capital, nonprofit acquisition, cultural land trusts and long-term leases, providing multiple consequential cultural-space mechanisms.
How this question is graded
Harjas Popli 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 alongside other core municipal services.
How this question is graded
Harjas Popli 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 preserving the existing cultural space where feasible, which is a strong cultural-space protection commitment under the locked ART-07 calibration.
How this question is graded
Harjas Popli 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 development requirements or incentives, fee reductions, private-owner property-tax incentives and nonprofit property-tax relief, including mechanisms that can expand affordable cultural-space supply.
How this question is graded
Harjas Popli chose 4 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.
Arts and culture are important to economic vitality, community identity and belonging. In a diverse community such as Saanich, cultural events and spaces also create opportunities for neighbours to learn about one another. I would focus on reducing unnecessary red tape, making municipal processes easier to navigate and building partnerships that stretch each public dollar further.
Rolling & cycling
B- 15% of this topic ROL-01 A
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 the Cedar Hill Cross Road connection between Ascot Drive and Ophir Street, already a short term priority in the municipality's plan, and would run it alongside the wider corridor safety review. A named gap with a reason for taking it first.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: I would prioritize completing the Cedar Hill Cross Road pedestrian and cycling connection between Ascot Drive and Ophir Street, identified as a short-term priority in Saanich's Active Transportation Plan.
It would close an important network gap while improving safety for both pedestrians and cyclists, and should be coordinated with the broader Cedar Hill Cross Road safety review. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 B
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: Supports physical protection as the standard with an exception where it is physically impossible. Impossibility is rarely the real barrier, so the exception invites the standard to be waived wherever the work proves hard.
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.
Harjas Popli 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 handle removal, narrowing or downgrading of existing protected infrastructure case by case. That leaves every finished piece open to reconsideration and the network short of the certainty that makes it worth riding.
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.
Harjas Popli 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 Cedar Hill Cross Road connection between Ascot Drive and Ophir Street and argues for finishing important links so the network reaches destinations rather than ending abruptly. The choice is supported by safety data, community input and cost.
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.
Harjas Popli's answerMy priority would be progressing the Cedar Hill Cross Road connection between Ascot Drive and Ophir Street.
It is identified as a short-term Active Transportation Plan priority and provides an opportunity to improve both pedestrian and cycling safety as part of a broader corridor review. I favour completing important missing links so the network actually connects people to destinations rather than building isolated sections that end abruptly.
Projects should be designed using safety data, community input and value-for-money considerations. - 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: Offers years of community service through a charity across Greater Victoria and conversations during the campaign about missing sidewalks and unsafe crossings. Real community work, but it is not 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.
Harjas Popli's answerI have not previously served on municipal council. My record is in community service.
Through Fateh Care Charity, I have spent years working throughout Greater Victoria and meeting residents where they live, including seniors, families and people facing mobility and transportation barriers. During this campaign I have also walked neighbourhoods across Saanich and heard directly about missing sidewalks, dangerous crossings, cycling concerns and accessibility.
That experience has reinforced my belief that transportation infrastructure must be safe and usable for people of different ages, abilities and modes of travel.
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 support a connected and safe active-transportation network, particularly where projects close genuine gaps and improve safety. I also believe each project should consider neighbourhood impacts, emergency access, maintenance, cost and the needs of all road users. Good transportation planning should connect communities rather than divide them.
Walking
A- 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: Modest support for multimodal planning and 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.
Harjas Popli 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 missing and inadequate sidewalks and unsafe crossings near schools, transit and seniors, and commits to an accelerated pedestrian gap programme with a public priority list and timelines. Sets out how projects would be ranked, including collision risk and accessibility.
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.
Harjas Popli's answerThe issue that concerns me most is missing or inadequate sidewalks and unsafe crossings, particularly near schools, transit stops, community facilities and areas with larger senior populations.
In my first term, I would establish an accelerated, risk-based pedestrian-gap program with a publicly available priority list and timelines. Projects should be ranked using collision risk, pedestrian volume, proximity to schools and transit, accessibility needs and network connectivity.
Walking should be a safe and practical choice for short trips, not an obstacle course. - 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: Supports raising the share moderately. The direction is right and the size is what holds this below an A.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 B
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Yes, but only for a season or a pilot. The support is real and it is time limited by design.
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.
Harjas Popli 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 would set up regular coordination between parent groups, school administrators and municipal transportation staff, weigh their input alongside safety data, and back effective 30 kilometre per hour zones, visible crossings and signs, traffic calming, safe drop off design, sidewalk connections and enforcement where speeding is demonstrated, with school area priorities published so families can see what is planned. Stating that a child's safety outweighs a driver's few seconds, and then publishing the plan, is the complete answer to this question.
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.
Harjas Popli's answerI would establish regular coordination between parent groups, school administrators and municipal transportation staff and use their input alongside objective safety data to identify priority improvements.
Around schools, the safety of a child walking or cycling must carry more weight than saving a driver a few seconds. I support effective 30 km/h zones, visible crossings and signage, traffic calming where warranted, safe drop-off design, sidewalk connections and enforcement at locations with demonstrated speeding or safety problems.
I would also support publishing school-area improvement priorities so families can see what is planned and when. - 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 would run an accessibility audit of the priority routes to transit, shops, medical services, recreation centres and seniors facilities, rank the missing sidewalks, uneven surfaces, inaccessible ramps, short crossing times and faded markings by risk, and set public timelines, coordinating with road, sewer and water work so one street is not dug twice. Ranking by risk with public dates attached is exactly what this question asks for.
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.
Harjas Popli's answerDuring the four-year term I would support an accessibility-focused pedestrian audit of priority routes to transit, shopping, medical services, recreation centres and seniors' facilities.
The resulting program should identify missing sidewalks, uneven surfaces, inaccessible curb ramps, inadequate crossing times, faded crossings and other barriers, then rank them according to risk and establish public timelines for repair.
Accessibility improvements should also be coordinated with road, sewer and water projects whenever possible so residents do not pay twice to excavate the same street.
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.
Walking infrastructure is basic municipal infrastructure. A missing sidewalk, inaccessible curb or unsafe crossing can determine whether a child can walk to school or whether an older resident can continue living independently. I would prioritize completing practical network gaps and maintaining what we already have before pursuing expensive showcase projects.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 B
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: Backs the shared service provided the municipality is made whole. That is a qualified commitment rather than a full one.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 B
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").
Harjas Popli's answer1. Apply an affordability and value-for-money test. Conduct regular reviews of programs and major expenditures, publish measurable outcomes, identify duplication and prioritize essential services.
2. Broaden the tax base instead of continually relying on homeowners. Support responsible housing and commercial development, attract businesses and employment, and pursue regional cost-sharing and senior-government grants.
3. Fund infrastructure based on lifecycle needs. Prioritize maintenance before expensive replacement, coordinate road and underground utility projects, strengthen reserves and publish long-term asset-management funding requirements. - 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 )
Harjas Popli 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: Backs First Nations at the transit governance table. No qualifier is added.
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 C
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.
Harjas Popli chose 1 of 7 optionsConsultation Fatigue exists, and is frequently heard. Why not ask First Nations first what they would like to see more of?
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.
Regional cooperation can save taxpayers money when municipalities share expertise, purchasing power and infrastructure. My test would be straightforward: Does the arrangement improve service, reduce duplication, strengthen accountability and provide fair value to Saanich residents? At the same time, infrastructure renewal must become a long-term financial priority rather than continually being deferred to future taxpayers. - 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.
Reconciliation should be built on respectful government-to-government relationships rather than consultation simply being a box to check. I support earlier engagement, clearer communication and creating meaningful opportunities for local First Nations to participate in decisions that directly affect their communities and territories.
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).