The Candidate Questionnaires
Hi again! Sick of us yet?
We promised we'd be back in touch with the results of our Candidate Questionnaires, and here we are.
First, in the spirit of true transparency (perhaps our favourite spirit of all, after gin) here is a copy of the email that we sent to all of the candidates inviting them to participate.
(We pulled the email addresses from the District website and CivicInfoBC. You'll notice Brian Robinson isn't on the recipient list. This is because his email address is nowhere to be found. We even asked the Chief Electoral Officer.)
So who responded?
We weren't surprised to hear back from the candidates for whom we've already voiced support: Kristine Marshall, Irene McConkey, Sanjiv Shrivastava and Greg Warner.
We were delighted to also hear from Jane Burnes and Jim Woolford.
And guess what? THAT'S IT!
What a relief, actually. Here we were thinking we'd have to read through all these questionnaires and figure out who actually gives a hoot about protecting North Saanich. But they did it for us!!
Seriously though: every single council candidate has talked a big game about how important it is to value diverse perspectives. How they're dedicated to working with all segments of the community. How they excel in collaboration. How what's needed to restore trust in North Saanich council are people who understand that effective governance requires the ability to bridge differences.
Just not with the people who feel strongly about keeping North Saanich rural.
That's a pretty significant thing.
(They didn't even respond to our email, you guys! Is this what internet dating is like??)
What's the upshot of the responses?
We have a few broad thoughts, but we'll leave any deep thinking on the matter to you brainy folks at home.
Firstly, we found it pretty interesting that the answers from the "North Saanich Strong" candidates are pretty diverse. There has been a great deal of hand-wringing from certain groups in the fighting pits of social media, who insist that running as part of the same electoral organization means people won't think independently. From their answers below, it seems pretty clear these candidates have all got their own ideas.
We won't bore you with another assessment of the candidates we're already supporting, but we will say a few words regarding the two other brave souls who sent their questionnaires in.
Jane Burnes is not a chatty lady in questionnaire format, it seems. She answered a lot of the questions in the same way we would (but with much more brevity....admittedly not our strong point). We were disappointed she didn't provide responses to two questions that we feel are particularly important, regarding who should have input into our community planning processes. We don't like the idea of housing of any sort on Sandown, but opinions are mixed on that below, as you'll see. Burnes also didn't like the idea of challenging the Province if they try to unilaterally amend our land use bylaws. If we didn't think Eby's goose was cooked, this would be a major sticking point for us.
The first thing we will say about Jim Woolford is that his PDF formatting skills are magnificent (these are the sad things you come to appreciate when you're the one stuck doing the website). Past that, we can't say anything for certain, in part because Woolford himself doesn't seem to be able to say anything for certain. We weren't particularly keen on his answer regarding adding density in excess of what is presently allowed in the OCP. And we really didn't like his answer regarding the Urban Containment Boundary (which was essentially "not right now, but....".)
But you know what: both these people showed up to the party and have put forward their views in black and white, to a website they must have known was going to give them at least a little grief about it. That counts for something. A lot, actually. Despite all the chatter about coming to the table and talking to people with different views, these two did the whole actions-over-words thing.
So, while we can't give Burnes a full high-five in light of her missing responses, if you want to fill in your whole ballot, she seems solid based on her responses.
In light of our firmly-held position on density, we cannot support Woolford's bid based on his answers. But we really appreciate that he participated, and we mean that sincerely. If there's going to be some people on council who are comfortable with density, he at least seems like a guy who's willing to talk to us flat-earthers. If Team Condo is going to have some representation in the council chamber, we hope it's him.
But hey - maybe your assessment will be different than ours! Read on, friends!
Without further a-do
The responses below are in compiled form. Links to individual questionnaires are below too, if you'd like.
Do you agree with North Saanich's regional role as set out in the regional growth strategy? If so, will you vote to uphold and protect this role?
Burnes: Yes
Marshall: Yes, I agree with upholding the Regional Growth Strategy. The RGS was developed by all 13 municipalities, the CRD and JDF Electoral area. It is an agreement that took many years to complete and outlines the vision for the region and what we need to do to fulfil that vision. It specifies the role and responsibility of North Saanich to ensure the entire region meets it goal of regional sustainability.
McConkey: Yes, I agree with North Saanich’s regional role, as set out in the Regional Growth Strategy and will vote to uphold and protect this role.
Shrivastava: Yes, I do. It is an important document which shows the alignment of all 13 municipalities in the CRD where North Saanich was identified to be maintained as a rural community.
Warner: Yes. Yes.
Woolford: Yes. North Saanich has a unique role within the Capital Regional District, particularly in protecting agricultural lands, rural character and environmentally sensitive areas. I support maintaining that role and making decisions consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy.
Would you vote to expand the urban containment boundary to include parts of North Saanich, now or in the future?
Burnes: No
Marshall: The RGS’ goal is to keep urban development compact and I believe that means keeping the UCB outside of North Saanich.
McConkey: No. Not now. Not ever.
Shrivastava: No, I would not. Most of the land in North Saanich is divided between the airport and agricultural land. Any expansion of the urban containment boundary will only increase pressure on the precious agricultural lands and the green canopy.
Warner: Absolutely not.
Woolford: I do not support expanding the Urban Containment Boundary at this time. My priority is ensuring that any growth is responsible, consistent with our rural character and supported by adequate infrastructure. Future councils must evaluate proposals on their merits, but I see no compelling justification for expansion today.
Do you believe the housing targets the province set for North Saanich were appropriate?
Burnes: No
Marshall: I believe the housing targets did not take into account the OCP and housing appropriate to North Saanich.
McConkey: No. I support North Saanich’s role under the RGS. Our role is not to supply housing. A minimum of 95% of the region’s new dwelling units to 2038 are to be within the Urban Containment Policy Area. North Saanich is outside of the UCPA.
2038 RGS Targets:
1.1 Keep Urban Settlement Compact
1.2 Protect the Integrity of Rural Communities.
Shrivastava: No, the housing targets do not take into account the actual population growth in the district. Nor do they take into account the infrastructure capacity in North Saanich.
Warner: Absolutely not
Woolford: I have concerns that the provincial housing targets do not adequately reflect North Saanich's unique circumstances, including limited infrastructure, agricultural lands and our role within the Regional Growth Strategy. Housing needs must be addressed, but targets should be realistic and developed in consultation with local governments.
Do you support more residential density than that which is set out in the current OCP?
Burnes: No
Marshall: No, I do not support more housing than outlined in the current OCP. I believe the current OCP needs to be fully implemented by finalizing the zoning bylaws and giving the OCP the opportunity to be utilized. There are housing units in other municipalities that are sitting vacant, and housing is on a downturn - I don’t think these things have been fully considered. More housing units also run the risk of more market housing and not attainable or worker housing.
McConkey: No.
Shrivastava: No, because the current OCP already meets the province’s housing numbers while also paying attention to the environmental and infrastructure issues in the district.
Warner: Absolutely not.
Woolford: I support working within the current OCP, adopted in July 2025. I do not believe we should pursue additional density simply for the sake of increasing housing numbers. Any proposed changes must demonstrate community benefit, infrastructure capacity and consistency with our long-term vision.
The schools on the peninsula are filled to capacity. The hospital is closed overnight, and Panorama is packed to the gills. If you are in favour of allowing density in excess of what is presently set out in the OCP, what should be done to alleviate the pressure on services and infrastructure on the peninsula, and who pays for it?
Burnes: N/A
Marshall: Not applicable
McConkey: I am not in favour of increasing density that is in excess of what is presently set out in our OCP.
Shrivastava: I’m not in favour of increasing housing numbers beyond the provisions made in our OCP, which also addresses the issues of limitations you raise in the question.
Warner: I am not in favour of allowing density in excess of what is set out in the OCP. The issue of infrastructure (schools, hospitals, recreation) area important when discussing densification with the CRD and the Province.
Woolford: Infrastructure and services must be considered before additional development is approved. Schools, healthcare, recreation, roads, water and sewer capacity are essential considerations. Developers should contribute appropriately through development cost charges and other lawful funding mechanisms. Provincial and regional governments must also accept responsibility for services within their jurisdiction. Existing taxpayers should not be expected to carry an unreasonable financial burden resulting from new development.
The current OCP had to be drafted to comply with the housing targets. As a result, it permits much more density than the previous OCP. If the housing targets are repealed, would you consider reducing allowable density the next time the OCP is considered? If so, in what way?
Burnes: We have an OCP in place and should work with that.
Marshall: I would consider reviewing the current allowable density to determine a density that aligns with what types of housing North Saanich needs like seniors housing, worker housing and attainable housing and how that housing can fit in with our rural character, ensuring agricultural land remains agricultural.
McConkey: Yes, I would consider reducing densities. I would support reducing multifamily housing while keeping accessory residential options that give homeowners flexibility, along with some ground-oriented housing for seniors. We need practical housing options while protecting North Saanich’s rural character.
Shrivastava: Yes. The OCP addressed the province’s housing numbers which is beyond the natural population growth for several decades in the district. The district’s housing targets should be based on the ground realities in the district – evidence and data-driven.
Warner: No, I think the density and housing plan in the current OCP is a made in North Saanich plan that has been thoroughly vetted by the Community Planning Advisory Committee and the planning department of North Saanich, with community consultation. The current OCP was designed not only to comply with housing targets, but to balance all of the priorities of our community, including infrastructure, property tax implications. Reducing density should be considered in the context of the needs of the community.
Woolford: Yes, I would be open to reviewing density provisions if provincial requirements change. However, I would not support automatically reversing the current OCP without examining the implications. The current OCP represents considerable public consultation and municipal resources. Any changes should be evidence-based, transparent and informed by residents.
If David Eby somehow ekes a win on October 24th and the provincial government imposes a ministerial order or other coercive measure which interferes with local land use planning, would you vote to take all available steps to oppose such interference, up to and including legal challenge?
Burnes: We need to negotiate, not fight.
Marshall: I would consider all available options to represent North Saanich residents. Ministerial orders are a provincial overreach and did not take into consideration feedback from residents. Community associations wrote to the Minister about the overreach and received a response that indicated the province will not consider community input. This is not a democratic approach.
McConkey: Yes. I would vote to consider all options – legal advice, pursuing legal action or a judicial review, whatever steps are necessary rather than simply accepting the outcome. We don’t have to go this alone. There are many other municipalities in the same position, and there is strength in numbers.
Shrivastava: Yes, I will. I would also encourage residents to write letters to the council to express their concerns about such orders.
Warner: Yes
Woolford: I strongly support local government having a meaningful voice in land-use planning. However, I would not commit taxpayers to litigation without first understanding the legal merits, financial implications and likelihood of success. I would support pursuing all reasonable avenues, including direct negotiations, advocacy through local government organizations and, where justified, legal action. Good governance requires standing up for our community while exercising fiscal responsibility.
What do you do for a living? If you're retired, what did you do before retirement?
Burnes: 40+ years with provincial government leading major projects
Marshall: I facilitate strategic planning and support senior leaders.
McConkey: I am semi-retired. I had a 37 year career in the telecommunications industry with BC Tel/TELUS, initially in administration and then as a technician. In addition to being a District of North Saanich Councillor, I work part time with my husband supporting seniors in a retirement home.
Shrivastava: I am a physicist and a researcher (retired academic). I also run a scientific consulting company.
Warner: I am retired, but I live farming and agriculture everyday. Before retiring I was a Chartered Accountant working in the area of finance, financial reporting, budgeting and business planning. At the time of retiring, I was the Chief Financial Officer of a private sector corporation.
Woolford: I am retired from a career in law enforcement and have operated a small residential construction business for approximately 15 years.
I also previously served as a School District 63 trustee and as an officer in the Naval Reserve. My professional background has given me experience in public service, budgeting, construction, leadership and working collaboratively with others.
With the exception of folks who are in the trades and on the tools, do you or any member of your family (spouse, parents, children, siblings) benefit financially from the residential development industry?
Burnes: No
Marshall: No
McConkey: No
Shrivastava: None whatsoever.
Warner: No
Woolford: I have operated a small residential construction business for approximately 15 years, building and managing residential projects.
I believe in being transparent about my professional background. My construction experience provides practical knowledge of building costs, regulations, permitting and infrastructure.
Any financial interests involving other family members would need to be disclosed separately.
Are you or any member of your family (parents, children, siblings, spouse) presently seeking to subdivide or rezone any property in North Saanich? What about in the next four years?
Burnes: No
Marshall: No
McConkey: No
Shrivastava: No and No
Warner: I am looking to build a small cottage (less than 1,000 sq ft) on our farm property within the ALR for use in the farm operations (housing for farm labour, farm succession planning purposes). It is permitted under the ALC rules, and it’s permitted under our present OCP, but our bylaws have not yet been updated to reflect this. As a result its unclear whether they will be updated in time or whether we will have to seek a rezoning. The building permit application has been in since January of 2026.
Woolford: No
If you answered anything but "no" to questions 9 and 10, how will you keep this from influencing your decisions if you are elected to council? (For reference, here’s Policy No. COU-014: Code of Ethics and Conduct for Council)
Burnes: N/A
Marshall: N/A
McConkey: N/A
Shrivastava: Not applicable to me. But I do believe that it would constitute a conflict of interest and they should recuse themselves from any relevant council decision.
Warner: Yes, I would recuse myself from any decisions that may influence the outcome of the application. Further, I would recuse my self from any issue that may have a potential conflict of interest.
Woolford: I would comply fully with the Community Charter, applicable conflict-of-interest requirements and the District's Code of Ethics and Conduct. Where a direct or indirect pecuniary interest creates a conflict, I would declare it and remove myself from the discussion and decision as legally required. My obligation as a councillor would be to serve the public interest, not any private business interest.
Do you or your spouse own more than one piece of property in North Saanich? (Zoned residential or otherwise)
Burnes: No
Marshall: No
McConkey: No
Shrivastava: No
Warner: Yes. The properties area for residential or agricultural purposes, not development or commercial.
Woolford: No
Do you think “engagement” for bylaws and policies relating to land use should include any person who is not a resident of North Saanich?
Burnes: [No response provided]
Marshall: Current residents of North Saanich should be the main participants in engagement.
McConkey: Absolutely not. Our community should be shaped by our residents, not those from outside of North Saanich who may have their own vested interests.
Shrivastava: No.
Warner: No, I believe North Saanich Council represents the persons resident or paying property taxes in North Saanich. Engagement for bylaws and policies should rest with the persons resident or paying property taxes in North Saanich
Woolford: North Saanich residents must have the strongest voice in decisions affecting their community. However, there are circumstances where input from non-resident property owners, businesses, neighbouring jurisdictions and technical experts is relevant. Engagement should be inclusive, transparent and appropriately weighted toward those directly affected.
Should it include external organizations? (UDI, VRBA, etc)
Burnes: [No response provided.]
Marshall: Depends on the external organizations. I would support organizations like Saanich Peninsula Environmental Coalition, Friends of North Saanich Parks and Habitat for Humanity as examples.
McConkey: Absolutely not.
Shrivastava: Absolutely not. Community decisions should remain in the hands of the council and the resident volunteers on advisory committees.
Warner: No, I believe North Saanich Council represents the persons resident or paying property taxes in North Saanich. Engagement for bylaws and policies should rest with the persons resident or paying property taxes in North Saanich
Woolford: Yes, where their expertise is relevant, but their input should not carry greater weight than that of North Saanich residents. Council should hear from a variety of perspectives, including agricultural organizations, environmental groups, residents, businesses and industry representatives. Listening does not mean agreeing.
The commissions have been suspended for months. If elected, will you immediately vote to reinstate them?
Burnes: Yes
Marshall: I have supported the committees and continue to support the committees. Yes, I would vote to reinstate them
McConkey: Yes. Guaranteed, 100%. Our committees are an invaluable asset to our community and Council’s decision making process.
Shrivastava: Absolutely, yes. The advisory committees are critical to local government accountability. I have deep respect for the residents who generously and selflessly volunteer their time and expertise to the advisory committees to provide community feedback to council and staff.
Warner: Yes
Woolford: I support restoring meaningful opportunities for residents to participate in municipal decision-making. I would prioritize reviewing the suspension of the commissions and determining how they can be reinstated effectively, with clear mandates, appropriate membership and a constructive relationship with council. I would not promise an immediate vote without reviewing the circumstances surrounding their suspension.
Are you in favour of building housing on the portions of the Sandown lands owned by the District?
Burnes: Interesting to consider, especially if it were somehow tied to providing affordable housing for farm workers.
Marshall: Those lands are an integral part of our drainage master plan and I would need more information on the type of housing proposed. For example, worker housing may be a viable option in certain areas.
McConkey: No
Shrivastava: Sandown is an agricultural land; therefore, its only purpose should be to maximize food production on those lands.
Warner: No.
Woolford: My priority for Sandown is protecting its agricultural potential and ensuring that public lands provide long-term community benefit. I would not support converting agricultural portions of Sandown to residential development without a compelling public-interest justification and a thorough examination of the legal, agricultural and financial implications.
Do you think that land presently zoned for agriculture should be considered for development if it is not being actively farmed?
Burnes: No. Land presently zoned for agriculture should be encouraged to produce food,
Marshall: I think we need to consider how to incentivize farmers to farm their land. We need to consider leasing programs, land matching programs, young farmers, partnerships, etc. Rather than deciding to develop farm land, I would look at ways to encourage farming.
McConkey: No
Shrivastava: Absolutely not. Once ‘developed’ we will lose them forever. We need to work on policies and incentives to increase food production in the district and create mechanisms such as facilitating the ALR leasing to new and young farmers.
Warner: No
Woolford: Not simply because it is not currently being farmed. Agricultural land is a limited resource. Land that is not productive today may become important for future food security. I support protecting agricultural lands and encouraging opportunities for sustainable farming.
Are you in favour of maintaining open burning in North Saanich, during the appropriate season and on days with a good venting index?
Burnes: yes
Marshall: Currently, many residents burn on appropriate burning days because alternatives do not exist. I would look at expanding the green waste facility, curb side pick up, etc. “good neighbour” matching programs (neighbours that take their green waste to the green waste facility are matched with seniors or other residents who cannot and voluntarily take their green waste as well) what other options could we consider to make it easier for people to find alternatives to burning.
McConkey: Yes. Open burning is part of rural life, but I acknowledge the smoke and health concerns. I would also like to see the green waste facility open more hours to give residents another option for managing yard waste.
Shrivastava: Yes, keeping in mind the fire-smart criteria.
Warner: No, I believe we should be on the path to no open burning. I believe the district should incentivise the non burning options like green waste drop off and seasonal pickups. Also, we should have the support of the fire department when issuing burning permits and discussing options other than burning.
Woolford: I recognize that open burning has traditionally been part of rural property management in North Saanich. I support maintaining appropriately regulated burning where permitted, subject to fire safety, air quality, provincial requirements and suitable venting conditions. We must also recognize the health concerns of neighbouring residents and consider reasonable alternatives where practical.
How do you feel about roosters?
Burnes: Our by-laws do not allow for them. Beautiful but too noisy. [Editorial note for clairty: They're allowed in the rural-agricultural zones, residential lots over 1.75 acres, and any ALR property. Cockadoodle-doo]
Marshall: No response provided [Marshall realized she'd missed this question after the response deadline. She sent us a note but, ruthless web-masters that we are, we refuse to upload a new version of her questionnaire responses. The upshot is she thinks roosters are a good thing on properties with appropriate zoning, and mentioned they're particularly important for the purpose of maintaining dwindling heritage breeds]
McConkey: Roosters are a part of rural life, but there needs to be reasonable limits to respect neighbours and manage noise. We can protect our rural character while being considerate of those who live around us.
Shrivastava: I am a vegan. I respect that we live in a rural community with horses, cows, chickens (aren’t roosters necessary?!), and other creatures.
Warner: I like them in rural areas. Common sense and respect for neighbours should dictate how many within a certain area.
Woolford: Roosters are part of rural and agricultural life, and North Saanich is a rural community.
We've compiled all the responses below so you can read them without clicking on six different links. But if you feel inclined (or want to bask in the perfectly-spaced glow of Woolfood's formatting) you can read each of the individual questionnaires by clicking on the names below:
Thanks for reading, neighbours!
And please, for goodness' sake:
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!!
POLLS ARE OPEN 8 AM - 8 PM TOMORROW
AT 1620 MILLS ROAD
If you're not registered to vote, or if you don't know whether you're registered to vote,
