How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Jason Heit'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 Jason Heit 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?
Public safety is one of my highest priorities, but many of the underlying issues involve provincial and federal responsibilities. Housing approvals are an area where the City has direct authority and can make meaningful changes.
Victoria cannot solve the housing crisis alone, but we should take responsibility for what is within our control. I would work toward a faster, clearer and more predictable approval process, while maintaining appropriate planning, safety and environmental standards. I would also look closely at municipal fees and unnecessary delays that add to the cost of building. - 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.
Jason Heit's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $2,000,000 Transit $600,000 Walking Infrastructure $400,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $250,000 Roadway Infrastructure $900,000 Policing $1,500,000 Fire & Emergency Services $1,000,000 Parks & Recreation $600,000 Arts & Culture $300,000 Climate Action & Environment $500,000 Unhoused Resident Services $1,200,000 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.
I believe our region has tremendous strengths, but we also face challenges that cross municipal boundaries. Housing affordability, public safety, homelessness, transportation, infrastructure and environmental protection cannot always be addressed effectively by municipalities working in isolation.
I believe in greater cooperation across the region while respecting the individual needs and priorities of each community. We should focus on practical solutions, clearly defined responsibilities and measurable results for the public money we spend.
Most importantly, I believe we need more balance and common ground. We do not have to choose between public safety and compassion, housing and good neighbourhoods, or economic growth and protecting our environment. By working together and focusing on outcomes rather than division, we can build a region that works better for everyone.
Healthcare access
What Jason Heit 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, and I believe municipal government should be careful not to make promises outside its jurisdiction. However, municipalities can support community health by working with the Province, health authorities and community organizations on issues that directly affect our residents, including homelessness, addiction, mental health, emergency response and access to appropriate community services.
My focus would be on cooperation rather than duplication: advocating for the services Victoria needs, supporting effective partnerships, and ensuring municipal resources are directed toward areas where the City can genuinely make a difference.
Transit
B- 20% of this topic TRN-01 B
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Backs cheaper fares for seniors, cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance and a lower cost regional monthly pass, without extending the commitment further. Most of the list is endorsed, though one measure is passed over.
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.
Jason Heit chose 3 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 B
Do you support removing general on-street parking (excluding accessible parking spaces) from frequent transit corridors and main arterial streets in your municipality, and reallocating that space to bus lanes, loading zones, and walking and cycling infrastructure?
Why this grade: Would take parking off busy bus routes only where a specific scheme demands it, rather than as a standing position. Deciding one scheme at a time sets no threshold that a future proposal would have to meet. 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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 B
Do you support rapid deployment of transit priority measures on frequent transit corridors, even where this requires removing on-street parking or a general-purpose traffic lane?
Why this grade: Supports rapid deployment of transit priority on frequent corridors, but not where it would cost a lane of general traffic. Ruling out the traffic lane is a named limit rather than an open ended one, and the remaining measures are accepted without further condition. 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.
Jason Heit 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: Would establish a regional transportation authority covering the whole area. The yes carries no caveat of any kind.
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.
Jason Heit 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: Supports new connections for buses and bicycles through parks, golf courses and public land, provided no mature trees are lost in building them. The condition attached is narrow enough that it leaves the commitment substantially intact.
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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 5 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded TRN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to transit in your region, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I believe our region needs a balanced, reliable and accessible transportation system. Transit should be a practical option that connects people to work, school, services and communities across the region. As we invest in transit, we also need to recognize that residents have different transportation needs and that many still depend on vehicles, walking and cycling. The goal should be improving mobility and reducing congestion through practical investments, regional cooperation and measurable results—not pitting one form of transportation against another.
Housing
B- HFL-01 6 / 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
Jason Heit chose 6 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.
Jason Heit 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.
Jason Heit 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.
Jason Heit 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.
Jason Heit 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.
Jason Heit 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.
Jason Heit 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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 6 / 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.
Jason Heit chose 6 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 1 / 6
The BC government set a housing target for Victoria at 4,902 homes over five years, which represents 75% of the estimated housing need for that period. Regardless of provincial requirements or penalties, do you believe the city should strive to build:
How this question is graded
6 points for too low, 1 for about right, 0 for too high. By definition, the provincial housing targets, being set as only 75% of estimated housing need is too low of a target to meet local housing needs.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-12 6 / 6
Municipal asset-management plans have identified substantial gaps between current funding and the amount needed to maintain and replace roads, water and sewer systems, public buildings, and other infrastructure. In Victoria, the 2024 Corporate Asset Management Strategy identified $570 million worth of infrastructure in poor or very poor condition. Which approaches would you prioritize to address this infrastructure problem? Select up to two.
How this question is graded
5 points for selecting more housing and commercial development, 1 for seeking additional provincial or federal funding, 0 points for increasing taxes or reducing infrastructure projects, and -2 points for increasing development charges, amenity contributions, and other fees imposed on new houses.
Jason Heit chose 2 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.
Jason Heit's answerBy the end of my first year, I would want to see measurable progress in making Victoria’s housing approval process faster, clearer and more predictable. I would push for a review of municipal fees, approval timelines and unnecessary barriers that add time and cost to housing, while maintaining appropriate planning, safety and environmental standards. I would also support partnerships with senior governments, non-profits and the private sector to increase both market and non-market housing.
By the end of four years, I would want to see those changes translating into more homes across a range of housing types and price points, including rental, affordable, family-suitable and ownership opportunities. Success should be measured not simply by how many applications City Hall approves, but by how many homes actually get built and whether Victoria is becoming a more affordable place to live.
Housing is influenced by all levels of government and broader construction and market conditions, but City Council should be accountable for the things within its control
Climate
C- 8% of this topic CLI-01 F
Would you support ending fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship on property, media and events controlled by your municipality, to the extent the law allows? And would you advocate for the same at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission for BC Transit vehicles and shelters?
Why this grade: No to ending either form of promotion. The answer leaves fossil fuel branding on council controlled property and events.
How this question is graded
Two commitments in one question, so the menu answer alone cannot reach the top. The menu sets a base and a Yes on the follow-up about advocating at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission raises it one step. Yes, both advertising and sponsorship = B, and A with the follow-up. Yes, advertising only or Yes, sponsorship only = C, and B with the follow-up. No = F, because ending the advertising is something the municipality controls outright. A follow-up written as free text rather than ticked is a judgement about the candidate and is graded by hand. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 6 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 C-
The Capital Regional District declared a climate emergency in 2019. How should your municipality treat climate action in its next four-year plan?
Why this grade: Would deal with climate as affordability allows. A commitment of that shape can be met by doing very little.
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.
Jason Heit 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: A no. The meetings would still be taken, and the grade lands where a conduct commitment is declined.
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.
Jason Heit 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 once a cap is in place. The condition is what separates this from the strongest answer.
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.
Jason Heit 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: No to the zoning prohibition. The candidate leaves the matter to the ordinary approval process instead of closing it off.
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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 A
Extreme heat, wildfire smoke and wildfire risk all affect people living in existing homes. What would you have your municipality do to protect them? Select all you support.
Why this grade: Picks four, and the three chosen first are the ones that cost money. That combination clears the top band comfortably.
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.
Jason Heit chose 4 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed) - 8% of this topic CLI-07 F
Are you supportive of phasing out fossil fuel powered tools such as leaf blowers (following the lead of Oak Bay and other municipalities across the country)?
Why this grade: Says no to the phase out. The answer leaves gas powered equipment in place for the full term.
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.
Jason Heit 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: Would assess each one separately. No standard is offered that a developer would have to satisfy.
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.
Jason Heit 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 relevant risks and provides generalized ideas for how to mitgate them, but does not go into specifics relevant to their 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.
Jason Heit's answerThe primary climate risks I see facing our community are extreme heat, drought and water supply pressures, more intense storms and rainfall, wildfire and smoke, and the impacts these events can have on critical infrastructure.
My approach would focus on practical adaptation and preparedness: maintaining and upgrading stormwater and critical infrastructure, protecting our water supply, strengthening emergency preparedness, maintaining a healthy urban tree canopy where practical, and using good data when making long-term infrastructure and land-use decisions.
Climate resilience should be practical, measurable and based on the risks our community is actually facing, while balancing environmental responsibility with housing, affordability and other essential community needs. - 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 protection and improvement 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.
Jason Heit's answerI support protecting and connecting important natural areas through practical land-use planning. This can include maintaining and expanding the urban tree canopy where appropriate, protecting streams and sensitive habitats, incorporating green space and native vegetation into new development, and improving connections between parks and natural areas.
At the same time, Victoria needs more housing. Environmental protection and housing should not automatically be treated as competing goals. Good planning should identify the areas most important to ecosystem connectivity while allowing responsible development where it makes sense. My approach would be based on evidence, measurable outcomes and finding a practical balance between protecting our natural environment and meeting the needs of a growing city. - 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 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.
Jason Heit's answerYes. New development is an opportunity to build resilience into our city rather than trying to retrofit everything later. We can encourage efficient buildings, better stormwater management, appropriate tree planting and green space, and infrastructure designed for extreme heat and severe weather.
At the same time, these requirements need to be practical and cost-conscious. We need more housing, and adding unnecessary costs can make affordability worse. I support finding a balance where new development contributes to climate resilience without creating barriers that make housing more difficult or expensive to build. - 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.
Jason Heit 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.
I believe climate policy at the municipal and regional level should focus on practical actions within our jurisdiction that produce measurable results. We should protect our water supply and natural environment, prepare infrastructure for extreme weather, improve energy efficiency, and make responsible long-term planning decisions.
At the same time, climate action needs to be balanced with housing affordability, economic realities and the cost to taxpayers. Good environmental policy should be evidence-based, achievable and measured by outcomes. We can protect our environment while still building the housing, infrastructure and economy our community needs.
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: Identifies arts and culture as core to economic development strategy. Sufficiently identifies ties to identity, tourism, local businesses and quality of life. Cites importance of transparency and fiscal responsibility but does not identify specific tools, actions or interventions.
How this question is graded
Jason Heit chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: The municipality should support a vibrant arts and cultural community by providing appropriate public spaces, reducing unnecessary barriers to events and creative activities, and supporting partnerships that deliver clear community value. Arts and culture contribute to Victoria’s identity, tourism, local businesses and quality of life. Municipal support should be transparent, financially responsible and balanced alongside essential services and other community priorities. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 2 / 3
If elected, what specific action will you commit to in your first year to strengthen your municipality's arts and cultural sector, and what measurable outcome should residents expect by the end of your four-year term?
Why this score: Provides a concrete direction, and cites community engagement to identify and reduce barries but lacks a sufficiently measurable/verifiable four-year implementation, tools, policies, and/or actions (many of which already identified in existing Victoria Creative strategy reports), not sufficient for a 3.
How this question is graded
Jason Heit's answerIn my first year, I would work with local artists, cultural organizations, venues and businesses to identify unnecessary municipal barriers to events, performances and cultural activities and look for practical ways to improve access to public spaces and City processes.
By the end of four years, residents should see more opportunities for local arts and cultural activities, stronger partnerships between the City and the cultural sector, and a clearer, more efficient process for organizing events and accessing municipal spaces and programs. Any public investment should be transparent, financially responsible and evaluated based on measurable community benefit. - 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 strong implementation combination involving affordability/stability, permanent assets and regulatory review.
How this question is graded
Jason Heit 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 consequential regulatory/permitting reforms.
How this question is graded
Jason Heit 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 substantive structural cultural-space mechanisms.
How this question is graded
Jason Heit chose 5 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 1 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Supports arts and culture only if new revenue sources are identified, making the commitment conditional.
How this question is graded
Jason Heit 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 a specific cultural-space preservation/replacement priority.
How this question is graded
Jason Heit 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 municipal tax incentives, new and the creation of a new one for property owners, paired with reduction of fees, providing a moderate municipal expansion of inventory.
How this question is graded
Jason Heit chose 3 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ART-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the arts in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Victoria has a strong arts and cultural community that contributes to our identity, quality of life, tourism and local economy. I believe the City should help create an environment where artists, cultural organizations and events can succeed while ensuring public funding is transparent and responsible. We should look for opportunities to reduce unnecessary barriers, encourage partnerships and make good use of existing public spaces. Arts and culture are an important part of a vibrant and economically healthy Victoria.
Rolling & cycling
C- 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: Would complete a missing link where it clearly improves safety and connects to the regional network, but declines to name a corridor today, preferring current data and consultation to settle it later. A conditional yes with the choice deferred, so nothing particular is committed to.
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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Yes. I would support completing a missing link where it provides a clear safety benefit and improves connectivity to the existing regional network. My priority would be a gap that connects an existing Victoria route to the regional trail or neighbouring municipal network, based on safety, usage, cost and community impact. I would want the specific project selected using current transportation data and consultation rather than committing today to a particular corridor without that analysis. Where possible, I would coordinate the work with already-planned road, utility or infrastructure upgrades to provide better value for taxpayers. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 F
Will you commit (or continue to commit) to physical protection (not paint alone) as the standard for all new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets in your municipality?
Why this grade: Will not adopt physical protection instead of paint as the standard for new and upgraded cycling routes on busy streets. Rejecting the construction standard outright is the lowest answer available here.
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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 C
Will you oppose efforts (current and future) to remove, narrow or downgrade existing protected bike lanes and other all-ages-and-abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure in your municipality during your term?
Why this grade: Would take each proposal to remove, narrow or weaken an existing lane one at a time rather than opposing them. Case by case sets no test and reserves no commitment.
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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 C
What is the most important active transportation project in the municipality that you will be focused on progressing? Please provide your reasoning.
Why this grade: Would close genuine safety gaps and join up routes, choosing by collision data, connectivity, use, cost and community impact, and timing the work alongside scheduled road and utility jobs. A sensible method, but the question asks which project will be progressed and none is named.
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.
Jason Heit's answerMy priority would be progressing active transportation improvements that address genuine safety gaps and connect existing routes, particularly where walking, rolling and cycling infrastructure ends abruptly or creates unsafe crossings. I would prioritize projects based on collision and safety data, connectivity, usage, cost and community impact.
I also believe these projects should be coordinated with scheduled road, utility and infrastructure work wherever possible. That allows us to improve sidewalks, crossings, accessibility and cycling connections while maintaining our roads and getting better value for taxpayers.
My goal is a transportation network that is safer and works better for everyone, regardless of how they choose to get around. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 C-
If you have previously served in local government, what did you do to advance walking, rolling, cycling or transit? If you have not, what in your record outside of council shows the same commitment?
Why this grade: Has not served in local government and offers experience as an executive and coach in combat sports, where safety standards, insurance, medical requirements and regulation matter. Substantial work, but none of it advances walking, rolling, cycling or transit, which is what the question asks about.
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.
Jason Heit's answerI have not previously served in local government, but my record demonstrates a strong commitment to safety, responsible governance and regulatory compliance. As Vice President of Boxing BC, a coach, and a professional fight promoter, I work in environments where safety standards, regulations and accountability are essential.
Promoting combat sports requires extensive planning and compliance involving medical requirements, security, insurance, officials and participant safety. That experience has reinforced my belief that good policy should be practical, evidence-based and focused on reducing risk.
I would bring that same approach to transportation: prioritize safety, listen to the people who use our roads and pathways, identify genuine risks and gaps, and invest in solutions that make it safer for people to walk, roll, cycle, use transit or drive.
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 believe rolling and cycling should be part of a safe, balanced transportation system. I support maintaining existing infrastructure, addressing genuine safety gaps and improving connections where they make sense. Future projects should be evaluated case by case based on safety, usage, connectivity, cost and their impact on residents and businesses.
Transportation should not become an issue that divides people. We need to consider cyclists, people using mobility devices, pedestrians, transit users and drivers, while recognizing that different people have different transportation needs. My focus would be on practical improvements that increase safety and mobility while providing good value for taxpayers.
Walking
B- 10% of this topic WLK-01 C
Municipalities, the CRD and the Province have all adopted targets to shift trips away from driving. Do you support meeting your municipality's adopted mode-shift targets, and would you vote for the necessary street-space and budgetary changes?
Why this grade: Modest support for multimodal planning and TDM.
How this question is graded
A = yes, even if it means removing driving lanes. C = yes, but not when it takes road space from drivers. F = no. Two steps between the two yeses because the adopted targets cannot be met without reallocating street space. Unsure and Decline to answer are both C- on this tab.
Jason Heit 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 unsafe crossings and high conflict intersections, especially for seniors, children and people with mobility challenges, and would target improvements using collision data and accessibility needs. The stated refusal to make driving harder puts a limit on how far those changes could go.
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.
Jason Heit's answerThe pedestrian safety issue that concerns me most is unsafe crossings and high-conflict intersections, particularly for seniors, children and people with mobility challenges.
In my first term, I would prioritize targeted improvements at locations identified through collision data, community feedback and accessibility needs. These could include improved lighting, visibility, accessible curb design, pedestrian-controlled crossings and appropriate signal timing.
I want walking to be a safe and convenient choice for short trips, but I do not believe we need to make driving more difficult to accomplish that. We can make walking more attractive by making it safer, more accessible and better connected while maintaining a balanced transportation system that recognizes people have different mobility needs. - 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: A yes with a limit on scale. More gets built, though not much faster.
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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 B
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Yes to trials. Nothing here commits the street space beyond the pilot.
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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 A
How will you work with parent groups, school staff, and municipal staff to assure that children’s safety is prioritized over convenience and flow of motor traffic?
Why this grade: You would work directly with parent groups, school staff and municipal transportation staff to identify problem locations and review collision data, speeds, crossings and sightlines, then back improved crosswalks, signs, lighting, traffic calming, appropriate speed limits and enforcement, with the people who use the routes daily given a meaningful voice. Saying that convenience should not outweigh a demonstrated risk to a child draws the line where this question asks it to be drawn.
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.
Jason Heit's answerChildren’s safety should be the priority around schools and playgrounds. As a coach who has worked extensively with youth and school programs, I understand how important it is for parents to know their children can travel safely to and from school.
I would work directly with parent groups, school staff and municipal transportation staff to identify problem locations and review collision data, traffic speeds, crossings and sightlines. Where risks are identified, I would support practical measures such as improved crosswalks, signage, lighting, traffic calming, appropriate speed limits and enforcement.
I believe the people who use these routes every day should have a meaningful voice in identifying problems. Traffic flow matters, but around schools and playgrounds, convenience should not take priority over a demonstrated risk to a child’s safety. - 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: In your first year you would run a systematic review of pedestrian infrastructure focused on the routes seniors and people with disabilities use, publicly rank the hazards, and carry them into a four year improvement plan with timelines and measurable progress, engaging those residents and accessibility organizations throughout. Ending the term with a public record of what was found, what was fixed and what remains is the accountability older residents ask for.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names what to fix and the order it gets fixed in: an audit, named priorities, consultation with older and disabled residents, a timeline inside the term. B = real improvements with no process behind them, or continuing existing work. C = states the need and defers it, or one fix with no plan. C- = a problem with no action, or an answer about something else. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
Jason Heit's answerIn my first year, I would support a systematic review of pedestrian infrastructure, with particular attention to routes frequently used by seniors and people with disabilities. That review should identify and publicly prioritize hazards such as damaged or uneven sidewalks, inaccessible curb cuts, unsafe crossings, poor lighting and other accessibility barriers.
From that assessment, I would support a four-year prioritized improvement plan with timelines and measurable progress, addressing the highest-risk locations first. I would also engage seniors, people with disabilities, accessibility organizations and neighbourhood groups because the people using this infrastructure every day often know where the problems are.
Maintaining existing infrastructure is a core municipal responsibility. By the end of the term, residents should be able to see what was identified, what was repaired or upgraded, what remains to be done and the timeline for completing it.
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded WLK-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to walking or pedestrian activity in your municipality, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Walking is the most basic form of transportation, and our streets and sidewalks should be safe and accessible for people of all ages and abilities. I believe our priority should be maintaining the infrastructure we already have, fixing unsafe sidewalks and crossings, improving accessibility, and addressing areas where there is a demonstrated safety risk.
These improvements are particularly important for seniors, children and people with disabilities. We should make walking safer and more convenient without deliberately making other forms of transportation more difficult. A well-designed transportation system should provide safe, practical choices for everyone.
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.
Jason Heit 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: Would agree with a cost recovery guarantee in place. The support is genuine and the boundary is stated.
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.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 B
If elected, what three steps would you take to put your region or municipality on a firmer financial footing?
How this question is graded
“Real financial resilience comes from increasing the productivity of land that's already served by infrastructure: letting neighborhoods incrementally thicken, encouraging redevelopment where roads and pipes already exist, building more value per acre instead of more acres that need public maintenance.” The Strong Towns approach thinks about revenue vs liabilities and the cost of replacing infrastructure as a key driver of municipal financial success. Next-increment intensification or better allows improved use of pipes, roads, and wires, increasing the economic base for the city while lowering vacancies (examples, strongtowns.org , archive.strongtowns.org ). No credit was given for/against for either a) sharing costs with neighbouring governments or b) asking for money from higher levels of government, both of which may have additional merit beyond the boundaries of the muncipality. A-level (excellent) answer: 1. a comment about density being linked to financial wellbeing (revenue side), 2. a comment about efficient use of that revenue (expenses side), 3. thinking about infrastructure liabilities and how to pay for them given the intergenerational problems. B-level (good) answer considers some of these principles, but likely doesn't consider both revenue and expenses. C-level (mixed) - may have other ideas about arbitrary efficiencies and doesn't provide a mechanism for doing the work they propose (e.g. "fill up the reserve fund" -- with what money?). F - working in the opposite direction of resilience (e.g. arbitrary property tax increase caps), or doesn't answer the question (e.g. "my municipality is on firm financial footing").
Jason Heit's answerIf elected, I would focus on three steps. First, prioritize essential services and review spending to identify inefficiencies, duplication and expenditures that are not delivering measurable results. Second, strengthen accountability and transparency so residents can clearly see where their tax dollars are going and what results they are getting. Programs should be evaluated on outcomes, not simply how much money is spent. Third, grow the tax base rather than continually increasing the burden on existing taxpayers by supporting responsible housing and economic development and making Victoria a competitive place to invest, operate a business and create jobs. Public money should be treated with respect: prioritize what matters, measure results and make every dollar count. - 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 )
Jason Heit 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: Would support the seat. The commitment is unconditional.
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.
Jason Heit 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: Qualified support.
How this question is graded
A = significantly more consultation practices. B = somewhat more. C = the current amount is enough. Written answers take the same ladder: A commits to partnership with local First Nations, B wants better consultation without committing to a change, C questions whether more is wanted. Nothing here has been graded C- or F.
Jason Heit chose 1 of 7 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded GOV-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to governance, shared services, and municipal infrastructure, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I believe good governance starts with accountability, transparency and a clear focus on results. Municipalities across our region should work together where shared services can improve efficiency, reduce duplication and provide better value for taxpayers, while still respecting the needs and priorities of individual communities. Infrastructure decisions should focus on long-term value, maintaining what we already have, and planning responsibly for future growth. Regional cooperation should be practical and outcome-driven—not another layer of bureaucracy. Taxpayers deserve to know what they are paying for, why we are spending it, and whether it is delivering results. - Not graded REC-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to First Nation transit governance or consultation practices, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I believe consultation should be meaningful, respectful and focused on building long-term relationships rather than simply meeting a procedural requirement. Local First Nations should have opportunities to participate early enough in the process to meaningfully inform decisions that affect their communities. At the same time, governance should remain transparent, accountable and focused on practical outcomes that benefit the region as a whole.
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).