How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Nick Dickinson-Wilde'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 Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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?
Most of my biggest priorities are complex and involve many policies and bylaws interacting together. If I had to pick a singular change, it would be to the Sooke Core Sewer Specified Area (Bylaw No. 147) - I would seek to amend it to include Sooke Road East to Kaltasin and the whole of Billings Spit and, as desired/negotiated, a connection for the T'So-uke IR. - 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $500,000 Transit $500,000 Walking Infrastructure $500,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $500,000 Roadway Infrastructure $2,000,000 Policing $300,000 Fire & Emergency Services $500,000 Parks & Recreation $2,000,000 Arts & Culture $2,000,000 Climate Action & Environment $500,000 Unhoused Resident Services $500,000 Community-Based Clinics $200,000
Healthcare access
What Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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.
Although it is much delayed a UPCC is scheduled to break ground this fall/winter (next to the Library) - this may dramatically change our healthcare status and major additional projects should be dependant on an analysis once the impact of its construction and full opening is apparent.
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: 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. Every option offered is taken up, and no cheaper subset is preferred to the whole.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 4 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 —
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: Treats the reallocation of kerbside space on frequent transit corridors as a question that does not arise here. Answered as not applicable rather than declined, so the row carries no letter and sits outside the transit calculation. Note: Sooke is presently not home to, nor planned for, any FTN corridors, that said the Route 61 is a lifeline service for the community and it, along with all sooke traffic, is confined to Hwy 14. The 61 is a highly unreliable service and so an uncommited answer to this question is dissapointing, though for a lack of planned FTN status in the VRTP this question will be left ungraded.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 —
Do you support rapid deployment of transit priority measures on frequent transit corridors, even where this requires removing on-street parking or a general-purpose traffic lane?
Why this grade: Treats rapid deployment of bus priority as a question that does not arise in this municipality. Answered as not applicable rather than declined, so the row is left blank and drops out of the transit calculation. Note: Sooke is presently not home to, nor planned for, any FTN corridors, that said the Route 61 is a lifeline service for the community and it, along with all sooke traffic, is confined to Hwy 14. The 61 is a highly unreliable service and so an uncommited answer to this question is dissapointing, though for a lack of planned FTN status in the VRTP this question will be left ungraded.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: Agrees that transportation across the region should sit with a single authority. Support is given outright, without qualification.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 A
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: Agrees to new links for buses and bicycles across public land where they would make trips materially shorter. The yes is unconditional, which is the strongest answer available here.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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.
Sooke needs significantly more internal transit connections. Additionally even the Sooke <-> Langford run during peak hours is over subscribed and has frequent lack of seating.
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
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 5 / 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 5 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 4 / 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 4 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 6 options - HFL-07 3 / 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 4 / 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 4 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-10 4 / 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerIf elected, by the end of my first year, I hope to have;
* Established consistent and predictable timelines for development, including and especially housing, with a much improved turn-around speed.
By the end of my term, I hope to have helped ensure
* Significant areas of upzoning to match OCP,
* Development timelines are consistently being met
* Eased development restrictions on small scale subdivisions (for example; family members wanting to split their property in half in order to create housing options for children or aging parents).
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: Clears the advertising and the sponsorship, and would speak for the same on the bus network. Both parts are answered without qualification.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: A top three priority with its own budget. The answer buys delivery without buying primacy.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 A
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Accepts the pledge in plain terms. Refusing the meetings outright is the strongest position on offer here.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 —
Climate-related damage and adaptation costs increasingly fall on municipal budgets. Would you vote to have your municipality join other BC local governments in legal action to recover a share of those costs from major fossil fuel producers?
Why this grade: Undecided on the legal action. Uncertainty is read as neither support nor opposition, so the row is blank.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: A no to the amendment. The question is about land use, where a refusal carries the full weight of a failing grade.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 B
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 assessments, staffed centres and a public campaign. Two funded measures is solid, and three selections is one short of the top band.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 3 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: Yes to phasing out the tools. The commitment is direct and needs nothing added to it.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: Support is conditional on terms not yet described. An answer of this shape is graded the same wherever it appears on the questionnaire.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerThe primary risks faced by Sooke are increased heavy rainfall and drought. Drought also subsequently increases the risk of fire and further increases the potential impacts of any flooding.
Action plan to support climate resiliency:
* Increase use of permeable surfaces.
* Increase street plantings - particularly trees and drought tolerant plantings versus heavy maintenance grass.
* Ensure new infrastructure is future-proofed for heavier rainfall (for example: size up culverts)
* Work with Province to create secondary routes out of single access areas - particularly Sunriver. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 B
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: Clearly supports the concept of ecosystem connectivity but does not provide specifics about how this would take shape in 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerA broad upzoning process that is staff and council driven will allow us to more easily plan for protection of seasonal watercourses and connectivity between parks. Predictability and planning, instead of the existing adhoc one at a time exceptions and rezonings, will make it possible to ensure that we increase ecosystem features and connectivity throughout our community. - 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 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerAbsolutely! A prime example of how development can be an opportunity to increase climate-resiliency is that many current prime development areas have a high concentration of ecosystem-degrading invasives, many of which are highly flammable (for example: broom). Thoughtful development that increases permeable surfaces, potential for rain water retention and landscapes with native plants can reduce fire risk and drought impacts for the surrounding area. - 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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.
Many of the largest risks come from outside of Sooke as a municipality - we don’t have jurisdiction over the large amount of foresty and rural lands that abut most of Sooke and cannot control fire or flooding risks from those locations. The critical issues posed by one single bridge across Sooke River is only solveable at a provincial level. However, we can do our best to manage internal risk factors, such as broom and drought-stressed trees, and we can seek to collaborate with external organizations to increase shared climate resiliency.
Arts
C- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 2 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: Connects arts and culture to community and economic activity, but gives limited detail on a broader municipal economic-development strategy.
How this question is graded
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Sooke supports many organizations through service agreements and grants and should continue to do that.
Many other communities - including smaller community - in BC provide significant arts spaces either through non-profit organizations or directly through municipal buildings with service contracts. Sooke does not. It is hard to see a short term future with current infrastructure challenges that Sooke can provide significant space, but it should be a long term goal to provide and or fund more arts spaces. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 1 / 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: Identifies supportive first-year action dependent on outcome of Gathering Place referendum, general support highlight in increasing pace of build, offers no other alternative support is no positive outcome, and four-year outcome is not sufficiently measurable/verifiable for 2 .
How this question is graded
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerIf the Gathering Place referendum is passed work to ensure that development of that proceeds at a faster pace than recent projects would suggest is likely and that it includes space for arts. Preferably partnering with the Sooke Arts Council with a service agreement or similar. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 3 / 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 a cultural-space inventory, regulatory review and public reporting, providing a strong implementation/accountability framework.
How this question is graded
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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 multiple consequential permitting, event, zoning and coordination reforms.
How this question is graded
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 3 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 substantive cultural-infrastructure and cultural-space mechanisms.
How this question is graded
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: Supports arts investment alongside other core municipal services.
How this question is graded
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 1 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: Uses overall community benefit rather than specifically protecting or replacing cultural space.
How this question is graded
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 2 / 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 existing (eligibale nfp-owned spaces) and creation of municipal tax-relief incentives (by for-profit owners), which can expand inventory, but does not establish the strongest high-impact mechanism combination.
How this question is graded
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 2 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
Rolling & cycling
A- 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: Sets out the gaps around the highway in detail and picks one to prioritise, a safe route from the Galloping Goose to Saseenos Elementary and the high school. A named link, with the narrow crossing at the river bridge explained and the cost of an alternative crossing acknowledged rather than glossed over.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: The biggest AT missing links in Sooke are related to Highway 14. There is no good connection between the Galloping Goose & Sooke core - the options are biking 2-3 kms on Sooke Road with paint only infrastructure, narrow paved shoulders with steep banks or an alternate route that adds 33% to the distance, significant extra elevation & challenging access point. Then, once you get to the Sooke River Bridge, where the MoTT removed the paint bike lanes, you either have to take the lane or, as the signs direct, the very narrow sidewalks - which are far too narrow for many bike trailers (including the one my toddler loves). There are similar issues west of Ed McGregor park.
I think the biggest missing connection that should be prioritized is a safe route from the Galloping Goose to Saseenos Elementary and EMCS. An alternate river crossing is a significant budgetary challenge but it would also provide a major safety & emergency preparedness benefit for when Sooke River Bridge is blocked. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 A
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: Accepts physical protection as the standard on busy streets without carving out an exception. The commitment is given plainly.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: Agrees to oppose efforts to strip out or water down protected lanes and routes built for all ages and abilities. No condition is placed on it.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: Picks improving the east to west route on Grant Road West and explains the choice: it sits wholly within the district's own jurisdiction, unlike the highway, and could serve a great many homes. A named project with the reasoning spelled out.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerWhile I think the most important singular connection is an alternate Sooke River crossing, cost/budget constraints mean that there is no clear current path forward on it. Therefore, I would make improving East-West infrastructure on Grant Rd West my primary focus. That road is entirely under District of Sooke jurisdiction (unlike Highway 14) and provides possible future quality connections to a lot of our residential areas. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 B
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: Travels by bike as a matter of course, has run entire election campaigns without a car, spoken for safer connections at council as a member of the public, and joined ride to work challenges. Sustained advocacy, though it stops short of a record of projects delivered.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerI live my commitment to active transportation and travel by bike regularly. I’ve actually volunteered on and managed entire election campaigns for federal and provincial candidates while traveling exclusively by bike. I have also spoken in favour of safer connections in various venues including Sooke’s council chambers as a member of the public and have participated in multiple GoByBike challenges.
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.
Since my teen years I’ve always been extremely confident as a cyclist - I used to regularly bike on Highway 14/WCR between Shirley and Sooke before paved shoulders were added between Otter Point and Shirley. Despite my own confidence navigating less than ideal infrastructure, I have always strongly supported safe infrastructure and having a toddler has only dramatically affirmed that. I'm entirely comfortable taking the lane on the Sooke River Bridge, but as soon as I have my toddler on the back of the bike that becomes somewhere between extremely uncomfortable and a big no. Everyone, regardless of confidence, physical ability, etc, should have safe access to active transportation options.
Walking
B- 10% of this topic WLK-01 A
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: Supports 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: Places the worst walking danger on the highway stretch between Whiffin Spit and Ed McGregor Park, is candid that the province controls it and has resisted fixes there, and commits instead to the Grant Road West multi use trail. The question asks for one change and this names one the municipality can deliver on its own, which is the commitment the question is after.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerThe biggest walking safety concerns I hear about are West Coast Rd (Highway 14) between Whiffin Spit and Ed McGregor Park. That is unfortunately under the control of MoTT who has consistently resisted any actions to provide pedestrian safety within the Highway 14 corridor. Given that, the primary focus for me would have to the (potential) Grant Rd West multi-use trail. - 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: Yes to more than double. The commitment is specific about scale, which is what separates it from the softer option.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 —
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Chose not applicable, and explained in the closing comments that the downtown is a single stretch of provincial highway with commercial space barely a block off it, so closing road connections is not workable yet, while naming Shields Road and a few others as future candidates for pedestrian priority or partial closure. That is a reasoned account of local conditions rather than a dodge, so the row is left ungraded instead of failed.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 B
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 identify a specific risk, that a proposed road connector without a separated multi use trail along its full length would make children markedly less safe, and you note that three of the four elementary schools sit on a provincial highway with little more than a conditional speed sign, committing to press for safety infrastructure there and for consistent reporting of safety needs to the ministry. The local diagnosis is precise, but parents, school staff and municipal staff have no part in the answer.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names parents, school staff and municipal staff and attaches something concrete: an audit, measures, funding, timelines, or work delivered. B = one half only, consultation without measures or measures without consultation. C = points at an existing programme as enough. C- = vague, deflects, or denies the problem. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerThe inadequate prioritization of children’s safety is my primary concern about the proposed Throup to Phillips connector (CP5) - without a properly separated multi-use trail the entire length of Throup Road children’s safety will be dramatically decreased. One of Sooke’s challenges is that 3 out of 4 of our elementary schools are located on Highway 14 where the only nod to safety is 40km/hr signs for "when children on highway.” Beyond working to ensure changes to Throup Road incorporate safety and accessibility infrastructure, I will also work to ensure that Sooke adequately and consistently reports safety needs to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. - 20% of this topic WLK-06 C
What will you do, in a 4 year term, to identify, prioritize and set time-lines to assure that pedestrian infrastructure is improved to meet the needs of the older and disabled members of your community?
Why this grade: Given a small district's budget you see ongoing small mixed use paved pathway projects as the best route, note that the larger problem is the near total absence of sidewalks, and welcome the requirement that new builds provide them with room to extend that as commercial development grows. Building through development requirements is real progress, but the question asks how you would identify, rank and schedule improvements for older and disabled residents, and none of those three steps appears.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answerAt this time, I believe that our best option, given the budgetary constraints of our small community, to prioritize and improve pedestrian infrastructure will be on-going small projects to increase mixed-use paved pathways.While there are some poorly built or deteriorating sidewalks, our biggest challenge is simply a total absence of sidewalks in the majority of our district. I’m happy to note that new builds are mandated to build adequate sidewalks in most cases and there’s the opportunity to expand on those requirements as we increase commercial development.
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.
Sooke's downtown is entirely 1 road - Sooke Rd with commercial space extending less than 1 block off it in most cases - and as such, given lack of connectivity, transit and other infrastructure, removing any road connections is not feasible at this time. However, in the future I think Shields Road and a handful of others could become great targets for pedestrian-oriented transformation/partial closure.
Governance
A- 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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 —
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: Has not settled on the question. With no position to grade, the cell is left blank.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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").
Nick Dickinson-Wilde's answer1. Upzone to reduce costs of development for both municipality and developers and promote commercial development.
2. Mandate timelines for rezoning, development permits and building permits.
3. Improve asset inventory/management to reduce risk of catastrophic/sudden infrastructure failures and resulting high costs - for example if the Blythwood Road culvert had been replaced earlier and not allowed to deteriorate to the point of collapsing, less damage would have been done and replacement would have been cheaper. - 17% of this topic GOV-04 A
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 )
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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: Supports First Nations representation in transit governance. Nothing in the answer defers it.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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:
Why this grade: Strong support for more reconciliation.
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.
Nick Dickinson-Wilde 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.
Due to its geographic position, many shared services with the core CRD areas can be less effective. However, CRD water is proof that some are cost effective and a quality option. Shared services should be sought out whenever possible if analysis demonstrates cost savings or improved service delivery. A quality infrastructure base is critical for long term fiscal responsibility and community health and happiness.
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).