To: The Honourable David Eby, K.C., M.L.A., Premier of British Columbia; The Honourable Christine Boyle, M.L.A., Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.
PREMIER@GOV.BC.CA, HMA.MINISTER@GOV.BC.CA, HOUS.DMO@GOV.BC.CA
CC: Saanich Council; Victoria Council; MLA addresses.
council@saanich.ca, mayor@saanich.ca, dean.murdock@saanich.ca; MayorAndCouncil@victoria.ca, mayor@victoria.ca, MAlto@victoria.ca; Grace.Lore.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Nina.Krieger.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Diana.Gibson.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Lana.Popham.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Darlene.Rotchford.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Ravi.Kahlon.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Christine.Boyle.MLA@leg.bc.ca, David.Eby.MLA@leg.bc.ca
(+copied to local media)
Dear Premier Eby and Minister Boyle;
Re: Victoria–Saanich Citizens’ Assembly and the Proposed 2026 Plebiscites
My name is Trevor Barry, and I am a resident of Saanich and President of the Capital Region Municipal Amalgamation Society. I write on behalf of the Board of AmalgamationYES concerning the Province’s response to the recommendations of the Victoria–Saanich Citizens’ Assembly.
After spending significant public funds, an extensive process of study, public engagement and deliberation, the Citizens’ Assembly reached a consensus recommendation that Victoria and Saanich should proceed to a binding referendum on amalgamation in 2026. We are deeply disappointed by the Province’s decision not to approve that referendum, and by the manner in which the decision was communicated, and by the resulting treatment of the Citizens’ Assembly members and local volunteers who participated in the process in good faith.
Lack of public communication
Premier, had I known that Minister Boyle had written to Mayors Murdock and Alto on April 29, I would not have submitted the opinion piece published in the Times Colonist on June 9. My article called upon the Province to make a decision. At the time of publication, neither we nor the broader public knew that a decision had already been made.
The April 29 letter did not become publicly known until June 18, when it appeared within a municipal agenda package. Until then, the Province had made no public announcement explaining its decision nor the implications for the Citizens’ Assembly process.
Our Board had been reluctant to raise its concerns publicly. We recognised that the government had faced a difficult legislative session with many competing priorities.
We also relied on earlier assurances from the former Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs that the Province would not stand in the way of the promised referendum.
During this period, we repeatedly contacted ministry staff and the Minister’s office seeking information about:
- the Ministerial Orders required to place the referendum question on the ballot;
- the form of a neutral voter-information process; and
- the use of the remaining Citizens’ Assembly funds and any additional funding required.
We received no substantive response.
Freedom of Information delays
When our inquiries produced no meaningful information, we submitted and paid for requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Those requests were first filed in February. Since then, the Province has received repeated extensions and we have received no substantive records.
Given the nature of our requests, the April 29 letter was plainly responsive and could have been disclosed. Even after the letter became public through other means, we received news of another extension.
We therefore ask the Province to explain:
- why the April 29 letter was not disclosed promptly;
- whether additional responsive records exist;
- when those records will be produced; and
- why repeated extensions have been necessary.
The decision not to authorise a referendum
We are profoundly disappointed that the Province declined to issue the Ministerial Orders required for a binding referendum in 2026.
The Province has supported comparable processes elsewhere, including the Duncan–North Cowichan amalgamation study and the incorporation process involving Okanagan Falls. The Victoria–Saanich process involved substantial public money being spent, extensive analysis and the participation of randomly selected residents. The Citizens’ Assembly concluded that there was sufficient information to proceed to a binding vote.
The Province had approximately 11 months following the Citizens’ Assembly’s recommendation to identify any alleged deficiencies in the process or the information available. To our knowledge, it did not do so.
If the Province believed that further analysis was required, it should have identified the specific missing information, explained why it was material, and provided a clear process and timetable for obtaining it. Instead, the Province’s concerns were communicated only after the municipalities and the public had proceeded on the understanding that a referendum was going to occur.
Further study
We do not oppose thoughtful analysis. Many of our members would welcome additional information about governance, service delivery, taxation and implementation.
However, further study should not be used to disregard the Citizens’ Assembly’s central recommendation: that the next step should be a binding referendum, supported by a neutral, third-party voter-information process.
Nearly $1 million has already been invested in the Citizens’ Assembly process. If that process was insufficient, the Province should explain:
- what information remains unavailable;
- why it is necessary before a referendum can occur;
- when the Province reached that conclusion; and
- what process will now be used to address the alleged deficiencies.
Without those answers, the call for further study appears indefinite and undermines public confidence in the Citizens’ Assembly process.
Indigenous consultation
We agree that the Province must engage meaningfully with the Indigenous Nations whose rights and interests may be affected by a proposed amalgamation.
The Crown’s duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous Nations must be honoured. Consultation should be meaningful, properly resourced and undertaken in good faith.
However, the Province has not adequately explained why consultation prevented a public referendum from proceeding. A successful referendum would not, by itself, enact amalgamation. It would authorise the governments involved to proceed toward the legislative and implementation stages, during which the Province would remain responsible for fulfilling its constitutional and statutory obligations. You could still refuse to amalgamate.
If the Province believes that consultation must occur before a referendum, it should explain:
- the legal and policy basis for that position;
- what consultation is required;
- which level of government is responsible for conducting it;
- why that work has not begun; and
- how and when it will be completed.
Without that explanation, there is a serious risk that Indigenous consultation will be publicly misunderstood as the reason the democratic process was halted. That would be unfair to the Indigenous Nations concerned and damaging to reconciliation.
The Province, not local volunteers or Indigenous communities, must take responsibility for explaining its decision and for ensuring that consultation is not used as an unexplained barrier to public participation.
The proposed 2026 plebiscites
The Province’s decision has left Victoria and Saanich considering non-binding plebiscites using wording originally designed for a binding referendum.
The proposed wording may have been appropriate when voters were being asked to make a binding decision. It is not appropriate for a non-binding plebiscite whose practical effect is uncertain.
The current approach risks creating an unfair process. Supporters of amalgamation are effectively being asked to win another vote merely to preserve the possibility of a future referendum, while opponents may need to prevail only once to halt the process.
One elected official described the problem as equivalent to a playoff series in which one team must win four games while the other needs to win only one. That analogy captures the democratic imbalance now facing voters.
The municipal councils adopted their plebiscite motions only after the Province declined to authorise the promised referendum. Deferring to those motions does not resolve the problem. The Province’s decision created the present circumstances, and provincial leadership is required to address them.
Requested action
We ask the Province to intervene and recommend that Victoria and Saanich withdraw the proposed 2026 plebiscites.
Instead, the Province should commit to a binding referendum in 2030 and establish a transparent process for completing, between 2026 and 2030, any additional analysis or consultation it considers necessary.
That process should include:
- a clear list of any further information the Province requires;
- a defined and properly resourced Indigenous consultation process;
- a neutral public-information program;
- a timetable leading to a binding referendum in 2030; and
- confirmation that the Province will issue the necessary Ministerial Orders once those stated requirements are satisfied.
If the Province nevertheless supports proceeding with non-binding plebiscites in 2026, the questions should accurately reflect their limited purpose. A more appropriate formulation would be:
“Do you support continued study of Victoria and Saanich becoming one municipality?”
That wording would make clear that voters are being asked whether the process should continue, rather than being asked to answer a binding amalgamation question that the Province has already decided not to implement.
Accountability
The Province supported the Citizens’ Assembly process, thanked its members for their work and indicated that it would not stand in the way of the resulting democratic process. The subsequent decision not to authorise a referendum represents a significant departure from those commitments.
We recognise that the government faces many urgent and complex responsibilities. Nevertheless, the integrity of public consultation depends on governments respecting the processes they establish and explaining their decisions when they depart from them.
We ask that you please take responsibility for the Province’s role by doing the following:
- publicly explain the decision not to authorise a binding referendum in 2026;
- acknowledge and apologise for the failure to communicate that decision promptly to the public, the Citizens’ Assembly and participating community organisations; and
- intervene to prevent an unfair and misleading plebiscite process.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your substantive response.
Sincerely,
Trevor Barry