My experience on the Citizens’ Assembly

From the beginning, I felt the Assembly’s framing leaned toward amalgamation. I did not experience it as a sufficiently balanced examination of whether combining the municipalities was the best option.

That is my assessment as a participant. Other members may have experienced the process differently, and I respect the time and care they contributed.

For me, meaningful deliberation requires room to question the direction itself. Concerns about costs, service delivery and local representation should receive the same attention as potential benefits.

Participating did not persuade me that amalgamation would provide sufficient benefits to justify the uncertainty and disruption.

Why the organizer’s later emails concerned me

My concerns deepened when Assembly Chair Peter MacLeod contacted members in June 2026 about the Province’s decision not to authorize a binding referendum.

In a June 19, 2026 email, he encouraged members who shared his concerns to organize a statement and contact MLAs, municipal councillors, mayors and local media. In a June 29 follow-up, he expressed disappointment with the non-binding ballot question and encouraged continued contact with representatives.

These messages concerned the push for a binding referendum. They were not an explicit instruction to vote in favour of amalgamation.

Nevertheless, I believe it was wrong for the person responsible for chairing the Assembly to encourage participants to lobby for a particular next step. In my view, that blurred the distinction between facilitating a public deliberation process and advocating for its recommendations to advance.

Members are entitled to organize and express their views independently. My concern is with the chair using his relationship with Assembly members to encourage that advocacy. It reinforced my doubts about the neutrality of the process.

Protect local representation and services

Saanich includes urban centres, suburban neighbourhoods, farms and rural communities. Those differences need a strong voice in municipal decisions.

I am concerned that a larger municipality could weaken the connection between residents and their representatives, particularly for communities whose needs differ from those of a downtown urban centre.

I also want to retain clear local accountability for police, fire protection, infrastructure, parks and other municipal services. Residents should know who is responsible and where to turn when something is not working.

Understand the costs before pursuing structural change

Combining municipalities would require careful examination of transition costs, staffing, service standards, infrastructure obligations and future taxation.

I do not believe residents should assume amalgamation will produce savings or better services. Those benefits need to be demonstrated.

My financial background leads me to ask what problem a proposed change solves, what alternatives exist and what obligations it creates. The scale of amalgamation makes those questions especially important.

Work together regionally

I support stronger cooperation on transportation, emergency preparedness, housing and environmental stewardship.

Municipalities can coordinate projects, share expertise and pursue partnerships while retaining their own councils and local accountability.

I would focus on practical cooperation with clear benefits for residents.

What the October ballot means

The October 17, 2026 amalgamation question is non-binding. The vote does not itself combine Saanich and Victoria. It asks whether residents support the municipalities becoming one and informs whether further work should proceed.

I will vote no.

How this connects to my priorities

Community Driven means balanced engagement and a meaningful local voice. Families First means protecting dependable services. Protect What Makes Saanich Home means respecting our identity and the diversity of our neighbourhoods. Responsible Leadership means examining costs, risks and alternatives before pursuing major structural change.