And perhaps a few comments of our own in response to each
From the TIMES COLONIST:
JULY 20th LETTERS – visit https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters-july-20-enforce-leash-laws-please-helping-our-neighbours-12566096
Three or four municipalities would be enough
With all the discussion of amalgamation between Saanich and Victoria, it is time to think larger. Thirteen different municipalities within the Capital Regional District are not cost-effective to the residents or in any way an effective form of local government.
For example, why should Victoria shoulder the cost of policing in the downtown when, in effect, we all use and should share the burden? Esquimalt complains each year about that cost to them, but we all benefit from that policing.
The costs for all of these municipal government offices are ridiculous. Just look at all the salaries alone that could be combined, especially the exorbitant chief administrative officer and management salaries. Also, when a new mayor is elected, there is often a parting of the ways with the existing CAO, which means huge severance payouts.
There should be no more than three or four different municipal areas. The Peninsula should be one municipal region, including North Saanich, Central Saanich and Sidney. The Greater Victoria region should be another area, including Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt, Oak Bay and View Royal. Langford, Colwood and the Highlands should be West Shore. Sooke and Metchosin could be part of that or be distinct.
In North Saanich, we have low taxes due to limited infrastructure, including street lights, sidewalks and the majority of properties are on septic systems. I accept that my taxes would increase if we amalgamated, and I know that many will not like that thought. However, the efficiency that amalgamation would entail would be beneficial to us all.
We could eliminate all the small fiefdoms with their inefficient spending and time-wasting ideas, and make the region work as a whole. If Toronto and Ottawa in Ontario, and Halifax-Dartmouth in Nova Scotia (much larger cities than all our little fiefdoms combined) can make amalgamation work, just think how it would be beneficial for all of us.
Premier David Eby just has to make it happen, or we propose the idea and get it going.
Janice LeBlanc
North Saanich
JULY 25th LETTERS – visit https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters-july-25-amalgamation-ward-system-for-school-trustees-12592121
Saanich has enough of its own problems
Re: “Victoria-Saanich amalgamation will make a clean slate,” commentary, July 23.
The commentary, from an original proponent of amalgamation, surely errs in suggesting that we would be well-served by “at-large” councillors in a municipality of some 200,000 people.
I think that experience elsewhere tells us that a community that size needs ward-specific representation (like MLAs and MPs), in order to safeguard what are local issues.
Do Saanich residents want to risk having a bunch of Victoria-oriented councillors running council and extending that municipality’s poor management into Saanich?
Already, we are told in Saanich that former mayor Frank Leonard’s program to attain infrastructure sustainability (by 2019?) is in tatters (the moaning about upcoming infrastructure costs). And, wouldn’t the University Heights area be a wonderful extension for Pandora Avenue?
Saanich is already in enough trouble from unrestrained spending. Do residents want to be paying for Victoria’s problems as well?
Roger Love
Saanich
AY response: While AmalgamationYes does not have a preference on which system is used to elect councillors (by default this would be one (1) mayor under “first-past-the-post” and VSCA-recommended ten (10) councillors using the current “at-large” system), we welcome discussion, dialogue, and FURTHER STUDY on other BC-congruent systems (such as multi-member electoral areas, or one-rep wards, or even “1-2-3” preferential ballots for either at-large or ward systems).
Our argument is simply that (a) how and who gets elected is not the point, because the benefits of amalgamation are ‘root-and-branch’ and not ‘colour of flower’. And (b) regardless of the system before and the system afterward, the larger constituency (geographic jurisdiction) will necessarily create a completely new leadership dynamic, and from that, it would be expected that a majority of elected council members – irrespective of their politics – would be new faces within the first or second election cycle.
Ward system could benefit municipalities
Re: “SD61 school trustees say they can’t overturn move to ward-style system,” July 22.
Bravo to Education Minister Lisa Beare; former official school board trustee Sherri Bell; and Nicole Duncan, the Greater Victoria School District board chair, for the roles they all played to launch and support the introduction of a ward system for the election of school board trustees.
Bravo to Esquimalt Coun. Tim Morrison, who recognized that a ward system would lead to better representation for communities and improve the relationship between the board and communities within the district.
Carolyn Howe, president of the Greater Victoria Teachers’ Association, said she was pleased that First Nations would be recognized with all the historical significance of that change. Andrew Gage, an environmental lawyer, said that the new system will ensure that the diversity of the district will be better reflected.
Attention Christine Boyle, minister of housing and municipal affairs, and all the candidates running to be the mayor and members of council in the Oct. 17 municipal election:
If 43 of 60 school districts already use an electoral-area system, I’m keen to see how many of our 161 municipalities and 27 regional districts will build on what’s happening, successfully, amongst our school districts to step forward and launch a ward system for the benefit of everyone… and democracy.
Imagine we could be more informed citizens voting for a more reasonable number of local candidates to be our councillor to represent our unique community’s needs and interests.
Gail Brown
Victoria
AY response: This letter happened to be published alongside the previous one, and our foregoing comment conveys our neutral position on electoral systems. It is noted however, that not all the names mentioned in Gail’s letter above were necessarily on-side with the SD61 decision to move toward a ward-system, especially one where both Saanich and Victoria’s per-capita representation would be so much worse than, e.g. Esquimalt or Oak Bay.
JULY 26th Op-Ed by Dr. Trevor Hancock – available at https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/trevor-hancock-why-amalgamate-only-two-greater-victoria-municipalities-12576995
Trevor Hancock: Why amalgamate only two Greater Victoria municipalities?
I am troubled by the growing expressions of support in these pages for the amalgamation of Saanich and Victoria.
My concern is rooted in a couple of very simple points: This is the wrong amalgamation, and anyway, what is the problem being addressed, and how will amalgamation improve our lives?
We are a single region of some 460,000 people, but with 13 municipalities, some of which are quite small. The report of the Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly noted the two municipalities “function as a shared civic space, and its governance should reflect that.”
Time and again throughout the report, much the same idea is presented — that impacts extend beyond single municipal boundaries. And time and again, they concluded a co-ordinated response through a unified municipality would be more effective.
But a combined Saanich/Victoria would still be bordering Oak Bay, Esquimalt, View Royal, Highlands and Central Saanich.
Aren’t they a shared civic space whose governance should reflect that? Moreover, while concluding “fragmented governance hinders effectiveness and accountability” and recommending amalgamation, they fail to recognize that this is equally true of the capital region as a whole.
Nor do they explain why reducing the number of municipalities by one, leaving a fragmented region of 12 municipalities, is a solution.
To me, it makes absolutely no sense to discuss the amalgamation of the two largest municipalities into one super-sized municipality while leaving the rest of the capital region untouched.
Any rational discussion of amalgamation must look at the region as a whole, and not just two municipalities.
The correct question here should be: “What is the best way to govern this region in the 21st century?”
The answer to that question needs to take into account the challenges of the 21st century, which include our ecologically unsustainable way of life, the extensive social injustices across the region, the challenges to democracy arising from social media and AI, and the rights of First Nations, among other major concerns.
I suggest the assembly’s response should have been: “It would make more sense to amalgamate the Greater Victoria region for that purpose, not just amalgamate the two largest municipalities.”
Now I am not arguing here for a single regional municipality, although I would argue for amalgamation into several local municipalities, and that some functions should operate at the regional level.
But in my Feb. 1 column “How would we reinvent local government from scratch?,” I suggested we apply the principle of subsidiarity — an assumption that all decisions are local (how local, we might ask — street, block, neighbourhood?) — and then ask which decisions does it not make sense to make at that level, but at higher levels?
More importantly, what is the purpose of amalgamation? How will my life as a citizen of Saanich be improved?
In my Feb. 1 column, I also suggested we should start by imagining the entire system of local government disappeared overnight and we had to re-invent it from scratch. What would we want to create if we wanted a more sustainable, just and healthy community?
Well, it’s not at all clear in the arguments for amalgamation. There is no reference in the Citizens’ Assembly report to a vision of what we are trying to achieve, while the word “wellbeing” appears only once, in a minority member report, and only about financial wellbeing.
In my Aug. 31, 2025, column (“Let’s have a conversation about the future we want for this region”), I suggested the people, organizations and institutions of the Greater Victoria region must come together both to understand the challenges we face and engage in an act of collective imagination leading to a better future.
Such a comprehensive governance review should be done under the auspices of the provincial government, not just by a group from just two municipalities.
As a citizen of Saanich, I will be voting against this ill-thought-out proposal to amalgamate these two municipalities, and I hope you will join me in voting it down.
I also hope you will join me in calling on the province to conduct a comprehensive governance review of the Greater Victoria region, one more suited to our regional nature and to the multiple challenges of the 21st century.
thancock@uvic.ca
Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy
AY response: many amalgamation proponents among us cheer on the main message of Dr. Hancock’s article above, i.e. a fulsome CRD-wide examination and study of amalgamation opportunities is warranted, and would probably lead to recommendations for fewer than 13 municipalities, and great degrees of benefits for each area of the region, and of course the region as a whole.
We appreciate how Dr Hancock is being provocative in asking “why didn’t the VSCA recommend this larger approach?”. But he already knows the answer: because they did not have the mandate to do so.
The reason to vote YES this year, is to keep this ball rolling. And with that will come greater study, further analysis, and quite possibly, an expanded scope of geographical consideration. But to be fair to the voter, who must be confused by all the changes to expectations for this fall’s ballots, even if the Province had provided for a binding referendum, the reason to vote YES to the merger of Saanich-Victoria is because it is the only form of amalgamation being offered, and the only one for which a thorough study was conducted.
We agree with the arguments made by Dr Hancock, we just do not come to the same conclusion about how to vote this year.
Don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good, and don’t let purity get in the way of progress.
The powers-that-be, in the other municipalities, and in the Minister and Premier’s offices, are working against us. We are only given the opportunity to vote YES in small, incremental ways, to keep this ball rolling. Once we get this ball over the current hill, then we can decide what to do next.
If you agree with Dr Hancock’s policy perspective and desire his ultimate process to ever have a chance to succeed, you should vote YES this fall.
(2 days later in the TC, a letter writer had similar concerns to ours…)
July 29th LETTERS – https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters-july-29-david-foster-is-true-star-oak-bay-homes-could-be-hotels-12604288
Merging Saanich and Victoria a good start
Re: “Why amalgamate only two Greater Victoria municipalities?”, column, July 26.
The logical inconsistency in Trevor Hancock’s article is alarming, and it could endanger the future of our community.
His advocacy for the amalgamation of all 13 municipalities in Greater Victoria seems sensible, and so too does his call for the province to conduct a comprehensive review of governance in our capital region.
But his plea for voters to oppose the amalgamation of Saanich and Victoria in this October’s vote is counter-intuitive, because how can one favour merging all of our balkanized fiefdoms if one rejects joining even two of them together?
Turning down the merger of Saanich and Victoria would jeopardize, rather than foster, regional amalgamation.
Fran Farquhar
Victoria