How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Ryan Painter'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 Ryan Painter said
- Not graded GEN-01
If you could change one policy, bylaw, feature, or municipal asset (i.e, facility or infrastructure) in your municipality, what would it be and why?
The Advisory Committee system definitely needs reform, and I would establish a Youth Advisory Council with a Council liaison who reports directly to the Council so VR can benefit from youth input. I'd work with our new Ward Trustee to engage schools in VR and feeder schools like Spectrum to find VR students who can bring new ideas, energy, and important perspectives to the town.
The problem with the previous administration's committee management is that they acted like rubber stamps for what council directed. I've spoken with several former committee members from past terms who felt shut down and silenced because their views or perspectives weren't "part of the mandate," even though their expertise and concerns were broadly relevant to the discussion. Committees should not be created so the mayor and council can appoint their supporters, so the town doesn't only hear what they want to hear. The town should have a fair process for selecting committee members and respect their input.
I don't blame this council for not seeing this as constructive and productive. Still, I would have liked to see more focus on reforming these committees so they can represent our community's perspectives and provide unbiased input and feedback to staff and council.
I do want to see the next council focus on what it can achieve over the next four years. I worry about a council that is overly ambitious and commits staff time and effort across too many projects, or commits to projects that never see the light of day. Taxpayers' money should be respected, and staff resources should be allocated to align with the town's strategic priorities as determined by the OCP and strategic plan, which this new council will need to formulate as the current strategic plan expires this year. - 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.
Ryan Painter's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $1,200,000 Transit $600,000 Walking Infrastructure $1,500,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $1,000,000 Roadway Infrastructure $1,800,000 Policing $400,000 Fire & Emergency Services $700,000 Parks & Recreation $1,000,000 Arts & Culture $300,000 Climate Action & Environment $700,000 Unhoused Resident Services $400,000 Community-Based Clinics $400,000
Healthcare access
What Ryan Painter 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.
The new partnership between the Town of View Royal and Aroga Lifestyle Medicine to open a primary care clinic in Eagle Creek Village is exactly the kind of action View Royal needs more of, using what the Town can control, space, partnership support, and a real budget commitment, to solve a health-care gap. Backed by $225,000 up front and $125,000 a year for the next decade, it's a real step toward what I've been campaigning on: a family doctor close to home. Aroga has committed to attaching 750 residents in year one, growing to 1,600 by year two. That's real progress, but it's not the finish line. I'd want the next council watching that capacity closely and ready to act again if View Royal still has residents without a doctor.
Transit
C- 20% of this topic TRN-01 C-
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Backs cheaper fares for seniors and cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance, without extending the commitment further. Half the list is taken up, which commits to lower fares for some riders but not as a general direction.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 2 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: Leaves the reallocation of street space on frequent transit corridors to be settled project by project. Deciding one scheme at a time sets no threshold that a future proposal would have to meet. Note: View Royal is home to the FTN Route 14 along the length of Craigflower Rd, Old Island Highway, and Helmcken Rd to Vic General. Route 14 is the third busiest route in the system, runs entirely in mixed traffic, and suffers from substantial delay and overcrowding at almost all times of day; peak hour only interventions would not meaningfully address the underlying issues pertaining to transit priority of this type and of the larger issues facing transit in View Royal
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.
Ryan Painter 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. Protecting the traffic lane takes the decisive tool off the table, although parking and signal priority remain in play.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 6 options - 10% of this topic TRN-04 A
Do you support the creation of a regional transportation authority?
Why this grade: Endorses the creation of a regional body with responsibility for transportation. The 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.
Ryan Painter 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. What is refused is the connection itself rather than any particular design for it, which puts it on the infrastructure side of the scale.
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.
Ryan Painter 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.
Transit is the clearest example of why jurisdiction matters. BC Transit runs the routes and sets frequency; View Royal doesn't control that. After working through the Bunt & Associates report, I find that most of the traffic frustration I hear on doorsteps isn't really a View Royal problem. Most trips through here start or end somewhere else. So when people ask what I'll do about transit, I'm honest: the Town's real lever isn't running buses; it's building the case, with real numbers, for the Province and BC Transit to invest here.
There's still plenty View Royal can do to make transit usable once it shows up. Coordinated signal timing, park-and-ride capacity matching how people commute, sidewalks and crossings that get people to the stop safely. Fixing congestion and shifting how people get around aren't separate problems.
I'd rather show up to the Province with a real ask backed by evidence than promise a bus schedule the Town has no authority to deliver.
Housing
F- HFL-01 3 / 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
Ryan Painter chose 3 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 3 / 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.
Ryan Painter chose 3 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-03 2 / 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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 2 / 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.
Ryan Painter chose 4 of 8 options - HFL-05 0 / 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.
Ryan Painter 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.
Ryan Painter 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.
Ryan Painter 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.
Ryan Painter 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.
Ryan Painter chose 2 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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-10 3 / 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.
Ryan Painter's answerI hope to have moved forward significantly with the implementation of the Town's recently approved OCP, which sees building along the Six Mile Corridor (Western Gateway Employment District Corridor), Atkins Mobility Hub, and Victoria General Hospital Transit-Oriented Area in such a way that we have ground-floor commercial with mixed market and non-market rental and non-rental housing options, as well as mixed office opportunities for co-working spaces with provincial and federal government workers.
After four years, I will have had approved and either commenced or substantially completed some of the above-mentioned housing and commercial opportunities, sufficiently enhancing the vibrancy of View Royal's business and commercial climate while adding housing stock and stabilizing or lowering residential property taxes.
Climate
C- 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 yes throughout. The advertising, the sponsorship and the regional advocacy are all taken on.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Ryan Painter chose 1 of 5 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: Climate competes with everything else and wins nothing in advance. The dedicated budget is the line this answer falls below.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 F
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Chose not to answer, with nothing in the written comments to account for it. The commitment was simply not given.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 F
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: A no on joining. Declining to pursue producers for a share of the bill is a refusal on the money side of the question.
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.
Ryan Painter 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: Will not support the ban. Gas station expansion would continue to be settled one application at a time.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 B
Extreme heat, wildfire smoke and wildfire risk all affect people living in existing homes. What would you have your municipality do to protect them? Select all you support.
Why this grade: Takes the bylaw, a campaign and retrofit financing. The grants are the one measure here that puts money into people's homes.
How this question is graded
Up to five measures may be ticked. Four or more ticks including at least two of the three the municipality has to pay for (subsidized home assessments, grants or financing for retrofits, designated centres with guaranteed opening hours) = A. Three or more ticks = B. Two = C. One = C-. None of the above = F. The funding floor is there because a straight count of ticks would let a candidate reach the top on the two cheapest options, a vegetation bylaw and an information campaign, while committing no money to anyone actually living in an overheating home. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Ryan Painter chose 3 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed) - 8% of this topic CLI-07 A
Are you supportive of phasing out fossil fuel powered tools such as leaf blowers (following the lead of Oak Bay and other municipalities across the country)?
Why this grade: Supports phasing the tools out. The commitment is plainly stated.
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.
Ryan Painter 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: Leaves the terms open until a proposal arrives. Nothing in the answer constrains what could be approved.
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.
Ryan Painter 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.
Ryan Painter's answerView Royal's biggest climate risks are the ones that hit every coastal town on the Island: wildfire smoke in summer, heavier atmospheric river events straining stormwater systems, and drought stress on our urban forest. I'd focus on what the Town actually controls. That means finishing what the Urban Forest Strategy started, protecting canopy toward the 30 percent target instead of letting it slide, and making sure new infrastructure is built to handle heavier rain events, not the rainfall patterns from twenty years ago. Adaptation is a hundred small decisions in engineering standards and maintenance budgets, and I'd rather get those right than announce something flashy that doesn't hold up. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 A
Ensuring ecosystem connectivity is an important adaptation strategy for climate change. How do you plan to maintain or increase ecosystem features across the urban landscape?
Why this grade: Identifies clear, actionable strategies to improve resilience through development relevent to their local context.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = says what connectivity is and why it matters, with local examples, usually tied to data, a programme already running or the official community plan. B = practical examples with no local detail, or no link back to connectivity. C = general support with no project named, or an answer broad enough to fit any question. C- = agrees with the idea and offers nothing to do about it, or answers about something tangential. F is not used.
Ryan Painter's answerWe already have a real tool for this: the Urban Forest Strategy, adopted this year, with a canopy target of 30 percent by 2045. I was proud to sit on and chair the advisory committee that approved this strategy. I'd focus on actually delivering it. That means moving on the municipal arborist role it calls for, and following through on the terms of reference for arborist reports so canopy protection isn't just a policy on paper. Beyond canopy, connectivity means protecting the creeks, wetlands, and green corridors we already have before we need new ones, and ensuring new infrastructure doesn't quietly sever existing connections. - 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.
Ryan Painter's answerYes, if sequenced right. New projects can be built to handle climate risk better than what's there now. They will give us better stormwater capacity, less impervious surface, and real tree retention, but only if servicing and standards are in place before approval. I've said throughout this campaign that servicing has to go in before building does. Climate resilience is part of that same argument. A new project built to a higher standard is a net gain. - 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.
Ryan Painter 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 work at the municipal level isn't about slogans. It's about the boring stuff done consistently, like canopy targets met, stormwater standards updated, servicing that accounts for heavier rain. That's where View Royal actually has authority, and that's where I'd focus.
Arts
B- 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: Identifies concrete municipal role, and executive recommendations of matching grants, public-space access and reduced permitting barriers; denotes art & culture autonomy sufficiently specific/consequential for 3.
How this question is graded
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: The municipality's role isn't to run cultural programming itself, it's to make room for the groups and creators already doing that work. That means grant funding that matches what local arts organizations raise on their own, rather than the Town building and operating cultural infrastructure directly. It means public spaces, parks, community halls, and sidewalks where people actually gather, that can host events without a mountain of permitting. - 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: Proposes exploring a matching-grant shift in year one, denoting a change in administrative and funding responsibilities, this policy could create unindtended barriers to new organizations, if city is only funding organizations with previous funding. Does identify increased funded events as a four-year outcome, but the first-year commitment is exploratory and the outcome is not highly defined.
How this question is graded
Ryan Painter's answerIn my first year, I'd want to explore shifting View Royal to a matching grant program for local arts and cultural groups, providing dollar-for-dollar funding up to a set cap, tied to what an organization has previously received. It rewards groups actually doing the work, rather than the Town picking winners. By the end of a four-year term, residents should be able to point to a measurable increase in the number of funded local arts and cultural events happening in View Royal each year. - 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 permanent cultural assets, a municipal cultural-space strategy and regional coordination—a substantive implementation framework.
How this question is graded
Ryan Painter chose 3 of 11 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-04 3 / 3
Arts organizations and event producers identify permitting, zoning and regulatory requirements as barriers to cultural activity. What would you commit to? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Selects a comprehensive package of service, criteria, permitting, event, coordination, zoning and disproportionate-cost reforms.
How this question is graded
Ryan Painter 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 development/amenity contributions, nonprofit acquisition, municipal leverage, patient capital and regional infrastructure funding.
How this question is graded
Ryan Painter 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 arts investment maintaining or growing alongside core services.
How this question is graded
Ryan Painter 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: Prioritizes overall community benefit rather than specifically preserving or replacing cultural space.
How this question is graded
Ryan Painter 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
Ryan Painter 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.
Arts and culture in a town like View Royal's size is about not getting in the way of the people already doing that work, and backing them when we can. Matching what local groups raise, rather than deciding for them what culture in View Royal should look like, respects that they know their community better than Town Hall does. I'd rather see a dozen small, community-driven events happen every year because the Town made it easy, than one big Town-run program that looks good in a press release and depends on staff time we don't have.
Rolling & cycling
B- 15% of this topic ROL-01 A
Will you commit to funding and completing at least one 'missing link' in your municipality's Active Transportation Plan during your four-year term? If yes, which one would you prioritize?
Why this grade: Prioritises the Island Highway corridor between the E&N Rail Trail and Admirals Road, one of three corridors the town's plan names, and points out that the route simply stops and pushes people onto a highway shoulder. The plan's phased build, starting near Shoreline Middle School, is cited as what makes it achievable within one term.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: I'd prioritize the Island Highway corridor, between the E&N Rail Trail and Admirals Road. It's one of three critical corridors named in View Royal's Active Transportation Plan, and it's the clearest example of a route that just stops. Right now it doesn't connect safely to the E&N Rail Trail, which is exactly the kind of gap that pushes people onto a highway shoulder or off their bike altogether. The plan lays out a phased build, starting with the western leg near Shoreline Middle School, making it achievable within a four-year term rather than a decade-long promise. - 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 except where it cannot physically be built. A condition that can be tested against a street, which places it just below a plain yes.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 —
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: Marks the question as not applying, rather than declining it or refusing to defend existing lanes. Read as a question that does not bite in this municipality, so the row is set aside and pulls the topic total neither way.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 A
What is the most important active transportation project in the municipality that you will be focused on progressing? Please provide your reasoning.
Why this grade: Picks the same Island Highway corridor and explains that people heading from the rail trail toward Admirals Road share a highway shoulder with traffic today, and that the first section can be built away from the road. A named project with the safety problem and the build sequence both set out.
How this question is graded
A = Candidate is able to identify a project in their community and speak to its importance. B & C = Candidate has a general idea of something that can be improved but it isn't high on their priority list. F = Candidate does not think any improvements can/should be made.
Ryan Painter's answerThe most important project is the Island Highway corridor between the E&N Rail Trail and Admirals Road. People trying to get from the E&N Rail Trail toward Admirals Road right now have no safe way to do it; they're sharing a highway shoulder with vehicle traffic. The plan already lays out a practical, phased approach, starting with the section between the E&N Rail Trail and Shoreline Middle School, where the pathway can be built off-street first. - 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: Served as a school board trustee and its chair, pushing for safe routes so children could walk, bike or roll to school rather than be driven, and has built a platform around closing the gaps the town's plan already identifies. Elected experience close to the subject, and candid that it is not a council record.
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.
Ryan Painter's answerI haven't served on Council, so I don't have a municipal record on this file directly. What I do have is my time as SD61 Trustee and Board Chair, during which I advocated for safe routes to school, ensuring kids could walk, bike, or roll there safely, not just be driven. That's the same thinking behind the current View Royal Active Transportation Plan, which already identifies the real gaps, and I've built my platform around closing them rather than starting from scratch. I don't think you need years on Council to know a highway shoulder isn't a bike lane.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 A
Which pedestrian safety problem in your municipality concerns you most, and what is the one change you would commit to in your first term to make walking safer and more attractive than driving for short trips?
Why this grade: Names gaps in the sidewalk network, too narrow or too degraded for a stroller, cane or wheelchair, and cites the municipality's own plan. Commits to funding the short term pedestrian projects already identified in it rather than commissioning another study.
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.
Ryan Painter's answerThe most common concern I hear, and the one the Town's own Active Transportation Plan confirms, is gaps in the sidewalk network itself. Stretches are too narrow or too degraded to use safely, especially for anyone using a stroller, cane, or wheelchair. In my first term, I'd commit to funding the short-term priority pedestrian projects already identified in that plan, not commissioning a new study, but actually building what's already been mapped out and validated through two rounds of public engagement. - 10% of this topic WLK-03 A
Sidewalk construction and maintenance is chronically underfunded across the region. Would you vote to increase the share of your municipality's transportation capital budget dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure?
Why this grade: Would more than double the current spend on walking infrastructure. The scale is named and accepted.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 F
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Answered not applicable on expanding car free streets. View Royal has village and commercial areas the question reaches, so this avoids the question rather than answering it.
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.
Ryan Painter 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 want parent and staff concerns going straight to Council rather than through a filter, with engineering staff working alongside the ward school trustee, school staff and parent groups on specific mapped problems such as missing crosswalks, faded markings and speeding stretches near playgrounds, using the evidence gathering that shaped the active transportation plan, and you refuse to let a needed fix sit in a queue for years. Insisting on mapped specifics rather than general safety talk is what makes a work plan possible.
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.
Ryan Painter's answerParent and staff concerns about traffic near schools need a direct line to Council, not a committee that filters them out. I'd want the Town's engineering staff working with our Ward School Trustee, school staff and parent groups on specific, mapped problems, not general safety talk. Missing crosswalks, faded markings, speeding stretches near playgrounds, using the same kind of evidence-gathering that shaped the Active Transportation Plan. Where a fix needs school-zone signage or a crosswalk upgrade, that shouldn't sit in a queue for years. Kids' safety on the way to school is not a convenience trade-off against traffic flow, it's the priority, full stop. - 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 commit to a public timeline for the short term priority projects the active transportation plan already identifies, so residents can see exactly when their own stretch of sidewalk or crossing is fixed, and you would have accessibility gaps such as broken pavement, missing curb cuts and faded crossings sequenced as high priority rather than left until the larger corridor work is done. Choosing to build what is already mapped instead of commissioning another study is the faster path to results.
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.
Ryan Painter's answerThe Town's Active Transportation Plan already identifies specific sidewalk gaps and problem crossings. In a four-year term, I'd commit to a public timeline for the short-term priority projects, so residents can see exactly when their stretch of sidewalk or crossing gets fixed. Older adults and people with disabilities shouldn't have to wait behind projects chosen for other reasons. I'd want accessibility-related gaps, broken pavement, missing curb cuts, faded crossings, treated as high priority in how those projects get sequenced, not an afterthought once the bigger corridor work is done.
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.
View Royal has already done the work of mapping where failures are. What's needed now is follow-through with a real budget, a real timeline, and projects that get finished instead of carried over.
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.
Ryan Painter 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: Yes, provided the municipality is not left out of pocket. A testable condition, graded as a conditional yes.
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.
Ryan Painter 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").
Ryan Painter's answer1. No guesswork on capital projects. Every big project approved by the council gets a real, multi-year budget with timelines attached before any shovels hit the ground. Currently, projects can carry over year to year without anyone really tracking what that costs. I'd fix this.
2. Make servicing keep pace with approvals. View Royal has a significant infrastructure deficit, and Bills 44 and 47 have put increasing pressure on the town without providing any support for underground infrastructure. We need to get the sequencing of roads, water, and sewer right so we don't struggle to catch up afterward.
3. Show residents where money is going. Provide plain-language accounting that people can easily interpret and understand, so they know where their tax dollars are going and where increased pressures on the Town and any increased taxes are coming from. - 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 )
Ryan Painter 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: A clean yes. The answer accepts a standing place rather than case by case involvement.
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.
Ryan Painter chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 A
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
Why this grade: Strong support for 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.
Ryan Painter 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.
Governance and infrastructure are connected more than people realize. Council can approve every trail and sidewalk they want, but if capital projects aren't tracked well across years, money gets spread thin, and projects carry over without anyone seeing the real cost. I'd want fewer, better-tracked projects, not a long list that sounds good at budget time but never gets delivered.
On shared services, View Royal is too small to do everything alone, and that's not a weakness; it's the reality of a town our size. Fire, parts of infrastructure, aspects of policing, we already rely on regional partnerships, and that's right. Where I'd push back is on a region-wide policy being applied here without accounting for what View Royal looks like on the ground.
I'd also want taxpayer money spent against a real strategic plan, not spread across too many priorities. Ours expires this year. That's the moment to decide what View Royal can deliver in four years, not what sounds ambitious at the start. - 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 would work to ensure MOUs were signed with Esquimalt (Kosapsem) Nation and Songhees Nations to set the table for how the communities engage and how the Town can respect them as Rightsholders.
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).