How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Bruce McGuigan'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 Bruce McGuigan 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?
I would make City Hall show its work. For every major initiative, residents should be able to see what was promised, who is responsible, what it costs, what changed and whether the result lasted. City Hall should make it easy for residents to see what was promised, what was spent, what changed and what was learned. - 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.
Bruce McGuigan's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $2,900,000 Transit $750,000 Walking Infrastructure $500,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $250,000 Roadway Infrastructure $500,000 Policing $1,000,000 Fire & Emergency Services $1,500,000 Parks & Recreation $500,000 Arts & Culture $500,000 Climate Action & Environment $750,000 Unhoused Resident Services $100,000 Community-Based Clinics $750,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
The most desperate current need is a good transportation plan that reduces traffic congestion and emission of greenhouse gases.
The region works best when municipalities cooperate on problems that cross boundaries while remaining clear about who is accountable for results.
I support practical regional cooperation where it improves service, reduces duplication or solves problems that Victoria cannot solve alone.
In regard to how a hypothetical $10M of new funding should be spent (GEN-02) my answer is illustrative and it is subject to change with further information, for example the “Housing” expenditure can include housing for people transitioning from shelters (“Unhoused Resident Services”.)
Healthcare access
What Bruce McGuigan 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.
Healthcare is primarily a provincial responsibility, but the City can remove local barriers and support credible nonprofit clinic operators where municipal land, zoning or facilities can improve access without duplicating the provincial system.
Transit
C- 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: Would push for every option on the list, which runs to free travel for under 19s, cheaper fares for seniors, cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance and a lower cost regional monthly pass. Backing every measure on the list is the widest commitment the question allows.
How this question is graded
A count of ticks, because no option here is cheaper than the others in the way CLI-06's are. Four or more = A. Three = B. Two = C. One = C-. None = F. The rows graded before this rubric was written are not perfectly consistent with it at three and two ticks; they were left as typed and the majority letter was taken. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Bruce McGuigan chose 4 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 C
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: Would remove general street parking from frequent transit corridors only where a particular project makes it necessary. Because the trigger is a project that may never be brought forward, the commitment cannot be held to in advance. Note: Victoria is home to the highest number of FTN corridors of any municipality in the region, chief among them the Douglas Corridor which will be seeing substantial redevelopment and transit priority in the coming years. This question is of critical importance to Victoria, and the CRD at large with respect to tranist priority.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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: Accepts transit priority on frequent corridors, with the removal of a general traffic lane placed off limits. Because the question turns specifically on giving up a traffic lane, ruling that out withholds the measure being asked about, though the rest of the toolkit stays available. Note: Victoria is home to the highest number of FTN corridors of any municipality in the region, chief among them the Douglas Corridor which will be seeing substantial redevelopment and transit priority in the coming years. This question is of critical importance to Victoria, and the CRD at large with respect to tranist priority.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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 creating a regional transportation authority. 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 F
Do you support building new bus-only and bike-only connections through parks, golf courses or public land when doing so would substantially shorten transit and cycling trips?
Why this grade: Rules out running new connections for buses and bicycles through public land to shorten journeys. Declining rules out the links themselves rather than the way they would be built, and a new connection is infrastructure.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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.
Victoria needs transit that is frequent, reliable and genuinely useful. I support stronger regional coordination and transit priority where it improves the whole network.
One of the region’s biggest missed opportunities is the existing rail corridor. It deserves a serious assessment of its potential role in regional transit.
Transit priority should be decided corridor by corridor, using evidence on safety, ridership, accessibility, emergency response, commercial access and travel times. If parking or a lane is removed, the City should show the change improves the network without creating disproportionate problems elsewhere.
Fare-free transit deserves examination. Since fares recover only part of costs, greater provincial support may justify lower or eventually no fares.
Victoria’s parks and green spaces are limited and valuable. I would not support new bus corridors through them simply to shorten trips. Walking or cycling links may be appropriate where impacts are minimal.
Housing
C- HFL-01 7 / 8
What kinds of housing could your municipality use more of? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per selected type to max of 8. Housing exists on a continuum and different types are appropriate for different households. All housing is needed and positively affects other types via vacancy chains
Bruce McGuigan chose 7 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 7 / 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 7 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 5 / 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 5 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 1 / 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.
Bruce McGuigan 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.
Bruce McGuigan 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 2 / 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 3 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-12 1 / 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 6 options - HFL-10 5 / 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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerYear 1;
- Publish approval-time baselines and service standards, and report performance.
- Identify City land and non-profit partnerships that can produce affordable/non-market housing.
- Review zoning and procedures so OCP-compliant housing can move faster while protecting existing lower-cost rentals; OCP-making must include meaningful public input and clear rules.
By end of term;
- Keep Victoria on pace to meet or exceed its housing target, with more market and non-market rental, supportive and family-suitable housing.
- Consistently meet published approval standards. Note; Residents should have a meaningful say in how their neighbourhoods change. Broad zoning rules or preferences for particular building types should be shaped through genuine public consultation, not decided in advance.
- Show publicly what lower-cost rental housing was protected, what affordable housing was added, and where displacement pressures remain.
Note; Residents who move into no parking buildings are committing themselves to a no vehicle lifestyle, consequently residents of those buildings should be ineligible for residential parking passes.
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: A full yes, transit advocacy included. There is nothing further this question could ask for.
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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Bruce McGuigan 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: Ranks climate high and attaches spending. Nothing in the answer makes other decisions answer to it.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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: Will not make the pledge. Keeping the meetings available falls short of what was asked, though the question is about personal conduct rather than about money or land.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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: Supports joining, but only with a ceiling on what the municipality would spend. A yes with a condition attached sits one step below an unconditional one.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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 on the bylaw amendment. The one land use tool available here would go unused.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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: Selects every measure on the list, funded ones included. Nothing is left for someone else to pay for or to run.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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: Backs removing fossil fuel powered tools from use. Nothing conditions the answer on other places acting first.
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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 A
Large data centres can add substantial electricity and water demand. Under what conditions, if any, would you support a new data centre in your municipality?
Why this grade: Opposes all new data centres. The position needs no conditions because nothing is being allowed.
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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-09 B
What are the primary climate risk(s) facing your community, and what actions would you take to support adaptation and resilience in your community?
Why this grade: Clearly identifies several relevant risks and provides generalized ideas for how to mitgate them, but does not go into specifics relevant to Victoria.
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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerClimate change is already affecting how people live in Victoria, through extreme heat, wildfire smoke, drought, heavy rain and coastal flooding risks. I would focus on practical measures that make people and neighbourhoods safer: cooling and clean-air spaces, more trees and shade, water conservation, better stormwater management, resilient public facilities and building upgrades. We should track the results and be clear about what is working. - 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: Shows clear support for the concept of ecosystem connectivity but does not provide specifics about how this would take shape in the context of Victoria.
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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerProtect and expand urban tree canopy and Garry oak ecosystems; connect parks, boulevards and habitat through native planting; use rain gardens and other blue-green infrastructure; and make development rules support shade, permeability and habitat. Track canopy, habitat and stormwater outcomes over time. - 8% of this topic CLI-11 B
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: Clearly supports improving resilience through development, but does not provide specifics about how this would take shape in the context of Victoria.
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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerYes. New development can improve resilience through shade and trees, efficient buildings, low-carbon energy, on-site stormwater management, cooling/air-filtration readiness and designs that reduce water demand. Requirements should be proportionate, predictable and evaluated for both climate benefit and housing / economic impact. - 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.
Bruce McGuigan 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 produce measurable results. I support action that cuts emissions and makes Victoria more resilient, with costs and results made clear.
Transportation improvements are part of climate action, especially where they reduce emissions and improve resilience to heat, drought, flooding and storms.
I will hear relevant stakeholders, but meetings do not determine policy. Decisions should be transparent, evidence-based and informed by genuine public engagement.
I do not support a blanket ban on new or expanded gas stations. Community need, location, traffic, climate impacts and changing technology should be considered case by case.
Fossil-fuel tools should be phased out where cleaner alternatives are practical, with reasonable transition periods and exemptions.
Large data centres are a poor fit for Victoria’s limited land base, but regional proposals should be assessed case by case.
Blue-green infrastructure should be proportionate to site, scale and demonstrated benefit.
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 integrates arts and culture into Victoria's economy and identity while identifying investment, regulatory reform and cultural-space tools as municipal priorities.
How this question is graded
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Treat arts and culture as part of Victoria’s economy and identity: support investment that strengthens neighbourhood life, tourism and creativity, and be clear about how that support is working.
Make it easier for arts and culture to thrive: reduce unnecessary permitting, zoning and regulatory barriers, with clear service standards and better coordination.
Help protect and grow affordable cultural space: use partnerships, leases, land trusts and other practical tools where the public benefit justifies the cost. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 3 / 3
If elected, what specific action will you commit to in your first year to strengthen your municipality's arts and cultural sector, and what measurable outcome should residents expect by the end of your four-year term?
Why this score: Commits to first-year permitting and cultural-space reviews, service standards and a revised action-oriented strategy, with four-year outcomes tied to permit performance, reporting and cultural spaces protected, stabilized or added.
How this question is graded
Bruce McGuigan's answerIn the first year, review cultural/event permitting and space barriers, publish service standards and identify vulnerable cultural spaces and practical municipal tools. Convert the current “Create Victoria Arts and Culture Master Plan” into a document with specific actions, performance targets and budgets.
By the end of the term, residents should be able to see shorter and more predictable permit processes, public reporting against those standards, and a clearer record of cultural spaces protected, stabilized or added through City and partner action. - 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: Supports municipal affordability tools, nonprofit partnerships and measurable implementation targets, directly addressing long-term implementation and cultural-space stability.
How this question is graded
Bruce McGuigan 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 comprehensive permitting, zoning and regulatory reforms including service standards, published criteria, coordination, a single point of contact and reduced disproportionate costs for nonprofits.
How this question is graded
Bruce McGuigan 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 leverage funding, nonprofit acquisition, cultural land trusts, patient-capital financing and long-term leases, providing multiple consequential mechanisms for securing cultural space.
How this question is graded
Bruce McGuigan 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
Bruce McGuigan 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: Commits to requiring replacement cultural space or an equivalent community benefit when redevelopment affects an existing cultural space.
How this question is graded
Bruce McGuigan 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, combining expansion mechanisms with protection of existing cultural capacity.
How this question is graded
Bruce McGuigan 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 not extras. They are part of what makes a city worth living in.
Creativity is the greatest urban asset. It drives ideas, identity, business, tourism and the energy that makes people want to be here.
City policy should make it easier for artists and cultural organizations to stay, grow and find affordable space. I support practical tools such as partnerships, land trusts, patient capital, long-term leases and using City funding to leverage other investment.
I would first look to approaches that avoid new taxes or levies, and judge each measure by its full costs and its full economic and community benefits.
Rolling & cycling
B- 15% of this topic ROL-01 B
Will you commit to funding and completing at least one 'missing link' in your municipality's Active Transportation Plan during your four-year term? If yes, which one would you prioritize?
Why this grade: Commits to a missing link and names Blanshard north of Hillside, a corridor where riders are separated from traffic by paint alone. The commitment is tied to not reducing driving lanes, and on a road of that width that condition is likely to decide whether real protection can be built.
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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Blanshard north of Hillside is the missing link I would prioritize without reducing driving lanes.
Victoria should finish a safe, connected network, not keep adding isolated pieces. Projects should be guided by current safety, traffic, usage and network data, with costs and impacts considered.
On roads posted at 60 km/h or higher, physical separation between cyclists and traffic should be the standard. - 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: Backs physical protection as the standard on busy streets, with an exception where it cannot physically be done. That carve out is where the standard tends to be lost, since cost and design difficulty are readily reported as impossibility.
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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 A
Will you oppose efforts (current and future) to remove, narrow or downgrade existing protected bike lanes and other all-ages-and-abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure in your municipality during your term?
Why this grade: Commits to opposing the removal, narrowing or downgrading of protected bike lanes and infrastructure built for all ages and abilities. The answer carries no qualifier.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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 Blanshard north of Hillside, a high speed corridor where the only separation between riders and traffic is paint, and frames the job as closing the safety gaps where speed and exposure put people most at risk. Specific corridor, specific deficiency, with the reasoning stated.
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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerBlanshard north of Hillside is the active-transportation project I would prioritize. It is a high-speed corridor where cyclists are still separated from traffic by paint.
Victoria should close important safety gaps in the network, especially where speed and exposure create the greatest risk.
Projects should still be tested against current safety, usage, grade, connectivity and traffic data, and should improve the network without creating disproportionate problems elsewhere. - 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: Points to provincial policy work spanning electric bicycles, vehicle safety and the effects of road infrastructure, and to treating transportation as one system rather than a contest between modes. Relevant professional experience, though the answer names no walking, rolling or cycling work that was actually advanced.
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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerMy BC government policy work included a wide spectrum of transportation issues, with examples ranging from technical advice on electric bicycles to vehicle safety and road infrastructure impacts.
I have long approached transportation as a system rather than a contest between modes. I support a safe, connected cycling network, better transit and accessible streets, with decisions measured by safety, travel time, reliability, accessibility and how well the whole network works.
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 safe, connected cycling network.
Projects should be evaluated as part of the whole transportation system, using current safety, usage, grade, connectivity and traffic data.
If a design is creating avoidable problems, City Hall should be willing to fix it.
Walking
A- 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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 B
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 sidewalks and poorly designed intersections forcing children and older adults into traffic, and commits to a risk based review with published timelines for fixing them. Strong on the problem, with the commitment resting on a review first.
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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerThe biggest pedestrian safety problem is where people, especially children and older adults, are forced into unsafe interactions with traffic because sidewalks are missing (Senior citizens and children should not be used as traffic-calming devices) or because intersections are poorly designed.
In my first term, I would prioritize an evidence-based review of the highest-risk sidewalk gaps and intersections, then publish timelines for fixing them with clearer crossings, safer designs and better signal operations. - 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: Would increase the pedestrian share of the capital budget, but by less than double. A real commitment with a ceiling on it, which is one step below the substantial increase.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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: Supports pedestrian priority and car free streets only as temporary, seasonal or pilot closures. A yes with a stated limit on it, which is one step below a permanent commitment.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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 treat what parents and students report as the starting evidence and would take the highest risk locations to Council, city staff and the schools with practical measures, timelines and follow up. Naming follow up alongside timelines matters, because a safety fix nobody revisits is how a school zone quietly stays dangerous.
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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerParents and students often know where the daily safety risks are.
I would make those concerns a priority for review, then work with Council, City staff and schools to address the highest-risk locations with practical measures, timelines and follow-up. - 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 find the worst sidewalks, curb cuts, crossings and signal timings, rank the highest risk routes, publish timelines and report each year on what has been completed. Public annual reporting is the part most plans leave out, and it is what lets an older resident see whether their own street is coming.
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.
Bruce McGuigan's answerOlder adults and people with disabilities should be able to move around Victoria safely and independently.
I would make this a City priority: identify the worst sidewalks, curb cuts, crossings and signal timing, prioritize the highest-risk routes, publish timelines for fixing them, and report annually on what has been done and what remains.
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.
Older adults and people with disabilities should be able to move around Victoria safely and independently. I would identify the worst sidewalks, curb cuts, crossings and signal timing, prioritize the highest-risk routes, publish timelines for fixes and report on progress.
Walking should be safe and practical for all ages and abilities. Projects and funding should be guided by current safety, accessibility, traffic and asset-condition evidence, with meaningful public input, including accessibility committees.
Mode-shift targets should inform, not predetermine, street decisions. Changes should avoid disproportionate impacts on drivers.
I support temporary, seasonal and pilot pedestrian-priority streets where they improve safety and public space. Permanent changes should follow when results are clear and wider impacts are manageable.
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.
Bruce McGuigan 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: Supports the regional service only where full cost recovery for the municipality is guaranteed. A named and checkable condition on a yes, which is one step below an unconditional 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.
Bruce McGuigan 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").
Bruce McGuigan's answer1. Tie major spending to a four-year financial and asset-management plan showing full lifecycle costs, expected results and public reporting.
2. Review service delivery, procurement and major contracts for duplication, avoidable cost and performance, then reinvest savings in priorities.
3. Grow the tax base through well-planned housing and local economic activity while pursuing senior-government infrastructure funding and maintaining adequate reserves. - 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 )
Bruce McGuigan 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 a seat for local First Nations in the bodies that govern transit. The commitment is unqualified.
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.
Bruce McGuigan chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 B
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
Why this grade: Moderate support for 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.
Bruce McGuigan 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.
Residents should be taken seriously before major decisions are locked in.
I support using tools such as a Citizens’ Assembly where appropriate, so people can examine difficult issues in depth and have their recommendations taken seriously.
I support regional delivery where it produces better service, clearer accountability or less duplication.
I also favour context-based parking policy rather than a blanket rule for every land use.
Infrastructure decisions should disclose full lifecycle cost, funding source and the result residents should expect. - 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.
Consultation should start early enough to matter. With Songhees and Xwsepsəm Nations, the goal should be respectful government-to-government relationships and practical partnerships, not simply more meetings.
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).