FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Capital Region Municipal Amalgamation Society (“AmalgamationYES”)
June 22, 2026 “Saanich does Minister’s dirty work”
The directors of the board for the local governance reform society known as AmalgamationYES are once again disappointed in the provincial government and local political leadership.
AY’s President, Vice President and Past-president and cofounder were all in the chamber at Saanich Council’s Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday night when a motion passed 7-2 that ensured the Recommendations of the Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly were disregarded and the $750,000 and thousands of volunteer hours spent by everyday local citizens were disrespected.
With only Councillors Harper and Phelps-Bonderoff against the motion, Saanich Council members voted to hold a non-binding plebiscite on the municipal ballot this October, instead of a binding referendum (about amalgamation with Victoria), as recommended in the VSCA study and Final Report.
“This is a slap in the face,” said Trevor Barry, the president of AmalgamationYes, “after all the hard work of VSCA volunteers and dedication of time and local resources, we are very disappointed to see Saanich Council become complicit – wittingly or unwittingly – with the provincial government’s efforts to kill this initiative.”
Barry went on to suggest that it should be the minister herself to announce her decision to withhold the orders necessary to conduct a binding referendum, and be held publicly accountable respectively: “If the minister isn’t allowed, or isn’t interested, in providing standard transition-funding to Saanich and Victoria over the next few years because of budget constraints, she should release a public statement admitting as much.”
Councillor Phelps-Bonderoff opined that regardless of how he felt about amalgamation, this was a bad-faith democratic process, employing an analogy about a hockey playoffs series that was inherently unfair because:
One team has to win 4 games, and the other team only has to win 1.
AY does not wish to see yet another non-binding plebiscite on this issue, which they see as an intentional way to take public momentum away from their hither-to winning streak of four ballot questions back-to-back.
April 29th letter attached: