Why my Citizens’ Assembly experience left me opposed to amalgamation
By Alli Deelstra
Oct 15, 2026
—————————————————————————————————
What happens when the chair of a citizens’ assembly encourages its members to lobby government? As someone who served on the Victoria–Saanich Citizens’ Assembly, that question became part of my experience of the amalgamation debate.
I oppose amalgamating Saanich and Victoria. Participating in the Assembly did not persuade me that the benefits would justify the uncertainty and disruption. It also left me with concerns about the process, which deepened when Chair Peter MacLeod contacted members in June 2026 about pursuing a binding referendum.
My experience of the 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 it differently, and I respect the time and care they contributed.
Meaningful deliberation needs room to question the direction itself. Concerns about costs, service delivery and local representation deserve careful consideration alongside potential benefits. My participation left those concerns unresolved.
What the June emails said
In a June 19 email to Assembly members, MacLeod discussed correspondence indicating that the Province did not intend to authorize a binding referendum at that stage. He expressed his view that setting aside the Assembly’s work without a clear and compelling public explanation would be a mistake.
He then encouraged members who shared that view to organize a statement and contact MLAs, municipal councillors, mayors and local media outlets.
Excerpt from Peter MacLeod’s June 19, 2026 email, “Referendum Update,” page 1. The crop includes his explanation and the invitation to organize and contact representatives and media. Original wording is unchanged.
In his June 29 follow-up, MacLeod described the councils’ decision to put a non-binding question on the ballot as disappointing. He acknowledged that some members had contacted representatives and encouraged them to continue being heard. He also offered to circulate a volunteer member’s email address so members could decide whether and how to connect.
Excerpt from Peter MacLeod’s June 29, 2026 email, “Referendum update 2,” page 1. The crop includes the discussion of the non-binding question, continued contact with representatives and voluntary coordination. Original wording is unchanged.
The distinction matters. These emails encouraged advocacy for a binding referendum. Neither explicitly instructed members to vote for amalgamation or campaign for a yes vote.
Why that concerned me
Even with that distinction, 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 boundary between facilitating public deliberation 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.
The emails document what he said; the concern about his role is my interpretation of it.
Local representation and clear accountability
Saanich includes urban centres, suburban neighbourhoods, farms and rural
communities. I want those different needs to retain a strong voice in municipal decisions. I am concerned that a larger municipality could weaken the connection between residents and their representatives.
I also value 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.
My accounting and governance experience leads me to ask what problem a proposed change solves, what alternatives exist and what obligations it creates. Transition costs, staffing, service standards, infrastructure obligations and future taxation all need careful examination. Savings and better services should be demonstrated rather than assumed.
Regional cooperation with local accountability
I support stronger cooperation with neighbouring municipalities on transportation, emergency preparedness, housing and environmental stewardship. We can coordinate projects, share expertise and pursue partnerships while retaining our own councils.
The October 17 amalgamation question is non-binding. The vote does not itself combine Saanich and Victoria. My position is to oppose amalgamation and support practical regional cooperation with clear benefits for residents.
Public trust depends on balanced engagement, clear information and room for disagreement.
—————————————————————————————————
See also:
Index of Articles and Other Resources on Amalgamation. – CRD Watch Homepage
Leave a Reply