Problems and Purpose

The Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly was a participatory planning exercise in citizen democracy to study the longstanding debate of amalgamating the two neighbouring municipalities. Conducted between April 2024 and May 2025, the project was led by the private consulting company, MASS LBP, in conjunction with the municipalities of Victoria and Saanich, the Province of British Columbia, and MNP accounting. The inception of the Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly project began in 2014 following a decade of citizen and municipal debate, and after passing a vote at the 2018 municipal election, support for a participatory research model to understand the costs, benefits, and consequences of amalgamating was secured.

Background History and Context

Saanich and Victoria are the two most populous municipalities in the Capital Regional District (CRD), with 117,000 and 91,000 residents respectively (Statistics Canada, 2023). The discussion of the municipalities amalgamating has long been a consideration because of the fragmented governance structure (Zomerman, 2021). Thirteen municipalities comprise the CRD, yet it has less power than other administrative districts, such as the Metro Vancouver Regional District, since it lacks legislative status and regional enforceability. (Government of BC, 2025).

The municipalities share common functions, such as transportation systems, labour markets, and healthcare networks, but they are governed under separate entities (District of Saanich, 2024). This has led to questions over inefficiencies of redundant services and an unnecessary barrier to regional coordination. Despite the added complexity of separate governing bodies, Saanich and Victoria have evolved to collaborate more closely in areas that benefit from coordination (CRD, 2025).

The public perception of amalgamation has been shaped by several factors: transparency and community identity. Previous discussions on amalgamation have faced resistance because of the lack of knowledge surrounding perceived costs and benefits between each municipality. There were also concerns around public input, fearing the top-down approach witnessed in other cities’ amalgamations. Meanwhile, the nature of municipalities developing under separate governance has brought a stronger sense of community identity to many of the municipalities. Some citizens fear the loss of community and culture that would accompany amalgamation.

Amalgamation would also likely have implications beyond the two municipalities. Saanich and Victoria represent half of the CRD population, so the other eleven municipalities would be prompted politically to follow suit. This brings into question who the stakeholders in the Victoria-Saanich amalgamation really are: is it limited to the residents of those two municipalities, or might there be harmful impacts of the citizen’s assembly overlooking participation in the other CRD municipalities?

With a region that is both densifying internally and expanding outwards, alongside tightening austerity measures, the discussion of municipal amalgamation continues to grow. However, inclusion and participation in traditionally political processes changes the question from whether amalgamation is feasible, to how the public should understand its implications and tradeoffs, and be a part of the process.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly secured a total of $750,000 in funding evenly split between the city of Victoria, District of Saanich, and the Province of British Columbia. The breakdown of the budget resulted in $275,000 for MNP’s technical analysis and report, $346,245 for assembly and recruitment by MASS LBP, and the remainder 112,000 for assembly and recruitment expenses.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

In April 2024 MASS LBP randomly sent out 10,000 invitation letters (selected by Canada Post) to Victoria and Saanich residents to recruit 48 volunteer members for the assembly. 1 in 12 households between the municipalities received an invitation, while 50 invitations were reserved and distributed to unhoused residents with the support of the local organization, Our Place Society. From April 2024 until the May 30, 2024 deadline, more than 300 residents responded. The final 48 members were randomly selected from the pool to participate in the Assembly, using stratified demographic quotas to proportionally represent the demographics of the Saanich and Victoria communities. Gender, age, ethnic identity, housing status and secondary geography factors were considered when selecting the representative group. It was also proportional to the population size of the two municipalities: 27 participants from Saanich and 21 participants from Victoria.

Methods and Tools Used

MASS LBP implemented a Representation Model in the design process to achieve proportional representation for the boundaries of Victoria and Saanich. The representation model determined the citizens assembly’s minimum and maximum target numbers for a range of diversity attributes in their Civic-Lottery process to create a balanced cohort. MASS LBP included gender, age, primary geography, secondary geography, population group, and housing status as relevant variance factors to determine equitable recruitment. The final 48 members of the Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly consisted of 27 Saanich residents and 21 Victoria residents. Of these, 24 were women, 23 men, and 1 non-binary. Age demographics were broken down into 65+ with 12 members, 45-64 with 16 members, 30-44 with 12 members, and 16-29 with 8 members. The assembly’s race and ethnicity consisted of 38 white members, 2 Indigenous members, and 10 members of other races.

Figure 2: Representation model used for targeted demographic composition of gender, age, and race/ethnicity distributions among the 48 selected members.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

MASS LBP used an arms-length principle to ensure independent status of the citizens assembly as the group researched the costs, benefits, and disadvantages to amalgamating. Through an 8 in-person session deliberative process, the citizens assembly spent 60 hours total listened and spoke to 20 guest speakers on various topics such as municipal boundaries, demographics, population projections, future housing needs, zoning, land-use policies, climate-change resilience, and the methods through which official community plans are developed with public input, engaged with over 250 residents through 4 roundtables, and reviewed numerous comprehensive technical studies and public submissions. Following the work done by the 48 volunteer members through the participatory planning model, The Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly concluded that the costs and benefits of amalgamation would override the drawbacks.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Our analysis draws on public participation theory to critically evaluate the Assembly’s level of engagement relative to its intended outcomes. We begin with Cooke and Kothari’s (2001) critique, which challenges the assumption that public participation is inherently democratic and highlights how facilitators and professionals can shape the public interest in ways that reinforce dominant political agendas. Next, we incorporate Boswell et al.’s (2023) framework on internal design and external government connections, alongside Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation, to further contextualize levels and forms of engagement. We then apply Fung’s analytical metrics to assess the Assembly’s position within participatory design choices. Finally, we draw on Cornwall’s (2004) concept of invented and invited spaces to situate the Assembly within broader participation practices and evaluate the effectiveness of its methods.

Democratic in Intention, Performative by Design

Evaluating the efficacy of the civic assembly framework requires examining both the nature of public engagement and the relational dynamics between the public and planning professionals. In this context, planners do not occupy the traditional role of authoritative experts who shape a definitive vision or exercise control over the outcome. Instead, they act as facilitators in a structured process designed to exchange information with assembly members, and in the process, shift the decision making power to the assembled public.

During one of the assembly meetings, planning directors from both municipalities served as guest speakers, offering participants technical and contextual information. Other guest talks cover a wide range of topics including the region’s historical development, social service needs, policing, Indigenous relations, and summaries of technical studies. The goal was to equip the public with a broad and balanced foundation of knowledge to support an informed recommendation on amalgamation. However, this very breadth raises a critical question: if complex, technical decisions rely heavily on expert knowledge, are civic assemblies necessarily better positioned to make such decisions than professionals working collaboratively across government departments? Exploring the relational dynamics between planners and the public—particularly the distribution of decision-making power—reveals several potential shortcomings of the civic-assembly model.

In a democratic system, the concept of “public interest” occupies an ambiguous position: it must be identifiable to evaluate political performance, yet necessarily broad and indeterminate in order to encompass a wide range of conflicting values and preferences (Sorauf, 1957, p. 619). Within a civic assembly, the public interest is not a pre-existing metric but rather both shaped through engagement and produced as the outcome of deliberation. If professional knowledge is understood as the primary missing ingredient that prevents the general public from making informed, consensus-driven decisions, then the civic assembly model effectively positions the public as a temporary proxy decision-maker—one who must be educated, briefed, and prepared by experts to make recommendations back to the government. Conversely, government institutions and professionals retain technical power but lack the democratic legitimacy to claim authoritative knowledge of the public interest on their own.

Seen this way, the civic assembly becomes a participation model that is, however well intentioned, performative by design: it stages the public as a necessary partner in governance, functioning as a quasi-contracted consultant whose presence legitimizes decisions already shaped by institutional frameworks, expert inputs, and political constraints that exist in governmental bureaucracy. In highlighting the often-overlooked structural constraints of participatory processes, David Mosse argues that “local knowledge” is not a unilateral force shaping planning processes and outcomes; rather, it is often structured by planning practices themselves, constrained by perceptions of what local agencies can realistically deliver. In this sense, public participation becomes less the means to practice community agency and more an exercise by the government in acquiring, translating, and managing new forms of planning knowledge (cited in Cooke & Kothari, 2001, p. 8).

On the other hand, the organizers implemented meaningful equity measures to be inclusive of participants’ diverse needs, such as providing public transportation reimbursement and childcare services, which helped reduce participation barriers for parents and individuals without access to a vehicle. This reflects the facilitators’ equity-focused approach, recognizing that inclusion requires enabling support. The critique of the civic assembly is not meant to dismiss the importance of public participation, particularly its value in helping residents understand governmental processes and contribute direct input, but rather to interrogate the civic assembly framework beyond the optics of participation, by being explicit about which forms of public knowledge are valued, how they are incorporated, and how they differ from the professional and vested forms of knowledge held within government.

Political Impact of the Citizens’ Assembly

To evaluate the political impact of the Vitoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly, it is helpful to consider both its internal design as well as its relation to the broader political context. Drawing on Boswell et al. (2023), who discuss both the internal design and external connection to the governmental system, and Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation, the following section addresses the Citizens Assembly’s strengths and limitations in shaping political outcomes.

Strengths

The Citizens’ Assembly provided members the opportunity to hear diverse perspectives, collectively discuss ideas and incorporate both technical information and lived experiences to produce a citizen-informed recommendation (Wilson & Mellier, 2023). The Citizens Assembly's purpose of considering the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation to then produce a final recommendation was straightforward and served as a direct communicative link between the public and the government (Boswell et al., 2023).

The independent administration provided by the Advisory and Oversight Group (AOG) helped strengthen the legitimacy of the process by providing fair and impartial advice to the development of the Citizens’ Assembly (Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly, 2025). This separation from direct political influence in the Citizens Assembly’s decision helped create a safe space for participants to consider policy options more openly and creatively which led to recommendations grounded on public interests rather than political constraints (Boswell et al., 2023).

Weaknesses

Despite the strong internal structure, the Citizens’ Assembly had limited power to effect political change. Its recommendation is solely advisory and has no direct decision-making authority over whether amalgamation will occur. Its influence depends entirely on how councils from both municipalities and the provincial government choose to act upon its findings.

In practice, at least four additional steps, none of which directly involve the Citizens’ Assembly, must follow before amalgamation takes place. First, both municipal councils must decide whether they want to consider the recommendation made. If they agree to proceed, they will then have to work with the Province of British Columbia to start a public referendum. Third, a majority, more than 50%, of voters from each municipality must vote in favor for the proposal to advance to the next stage. Lastly, even with this public support, the Province has the authority to approve or reject amalgamation (Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly, 2025). Therefore, given the nature of this process, the Citizens’ Assembly power to effect political and practical change is limited. Its recommendation can inform both councils and the public members in light of the potential public referendum, but it cannot directly impact policy.

Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation helps contextualize this level of influence. As the Citizens Assembly’s role is to advise, it falls under the Placation rung (see Figure 4), meaning that the Assembly has the opportunity to provide meaningful input but the final decision-making power remains in the hands of municipal councils and, ultimately, the provincial government. This structure introduces a significant buffer between the Citizens’ Assembly recommendation and any potential political outcome. While its input may be considered, the non-binding nature of the recommendation’s adoption generates a weaker policy impact potential (Gąsiorowska, 2023).

Figure 4: Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly positioned on Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation. Adapted from Arnstein (1969).

Since the process is still ongoing and municipal councils have not yet made a decision to advance the Citizens Assembly’s recommendation, it is unclear how seriously they will incorporate it into the next stages of the process. Nevertheless, the current design of the process suggests that the Citizens’ Assembly occupies an advisory role rather than a position that has substantial political authority in decision-making.

Fung’s Democracy Cube

Fung’s democracy cube can be used to analyze the Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly by mapping its participatory features across the model’s three dimensions: who participates, how they communicate and decide and their level of influence. Within this framework, the Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly falls under Randomly Selected and Open with Targeted Recruitment of the Participant Selection axis, Deliberate and Negotiate of the Communication and Decision axis and Advise/Consult on the Authority and Power axis (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Situating the Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly on Fung’s Democracy Cube.

Strengths

One notable strength of the Victoria–Saanich Citizens’ Assembly lies in its invitation and selection process. The initial recruitment phase reflects the Randomly Selected mode on the Participant Selection axis, which offers the “best guarantee of descriptive representativeness” (Fung, 2006, p. 68). Efforts to achieve an accurate reflection of the two municipalities continued in the final selection stage. This element of the process aligns with the Open with Targeted Recruitment mode, as the initial pool was open to all invitees, while the final group of 48 members was deliberately chosen to mirror the demographics and relative population sizes of Saanich and Victoria.

Another strength is its structured approach to deliberation, which aligns with the Deliberate and Negotiate mode on the Communication and Decision axis. Participants were encouraged to develop their own views and deliberate towards group agreement through a process that emphasized learning, reflection, and reason-giving. Over the course of eight sessions, members engaged with background materials, exchanged perspectives and experiences, and clarified their values and priorities. The assembly incorporated plenary discussions, presentations, expert panels with Q&A, invited speakers, and small-group deliberations through its 8 sessions.

Members also reviewed dozens of public submissions and participated in four public meetings that engaged more than 250 residents, enabling them to incorporate a broad range of perspectives beyond their own. Public sessions were held after hearing from Indigenous Elders and urban planners, grounding deliberations in lived experience and expert knowledge.

This structure fostered open learning and collaborative problem-solving to reach a well-grounded decision and well-informed final recommendations. Such a structure reflects what political theorists describe as the deliberative ideal of democracy, and what dispute-resolution scholars view as a process of negotiation and consensus-building (Fung, 2006).

Weaknesses

The assembly aligns with the Advise/Consult category on the Authority and Power axis, as its members provide recommendations intended to influence public authorities on the question of amalgamation. Ultimately, however, final decision-making power remains with the municipalities and the provincial government following the referendum, meaning that while officials commit to receiving input from participants, they retain full authority over the outcome (Fung, 2006). This raises questions about the practical value of the assembly: considerable time and resources were invested, yet the final decision still rests with governmental actors. Although the assembly’s recommendations may shape that decision, the extent of their influence remains uncertain. Only time will reveal how – or whether – the assembly’s work will meaningfully affect the future of amalgamation between the two municipalities.

A defining characteristic of participating in a citizens’ assembly is its voluntary nature; hence, members were not paid to serve. As members are not compensated for their time, the pool of responding residents is limited to those who are able and willing to volunteer their time and effort and motivated by their personal interest in amalgamating the two municipalities. As a result, the initial pool of roughly 300 respondents constituted a self-selecting group that may already have held vested interests or possessed greater capacity to participate. This dynamic inherently constrains the assembly’s representativeness, despite efforts to ensure equitable demographic selection in later stages.

Cornwall’s Theory of Invited vs. Invented Spaces

The Victoria-Saanich citizens’ assembly can be further examined through the lens of Andrea Cornwall’s participation theory of invited and invented spaces. Invited spaces are defined as spaces that are “structured and owned by those who provide them, no matter how participatory they may seek to be” (Cornwall, 2008, p. 275). Whereas, invented spaces are spaces for participation that people create for themselves, they often have less differences in power and typically are formed through a coming together of common needs or interests (Cornwall, 2008).

Following these definitions, the Victoria-Saanich citizens’ assembly falls into the categorization of an invited space as it is a space set up, structured, and organized by the government and the consultants they hired. While the citizens’ assembly as a form of public participation sits in a good place in terms of public engagement on Arnstein's Ladder (1969) and Fung’s Democracy Cube (2006), Cornwall (2008) highlights how the form of an invited space can be problematic. Due to the fact that invited spaces inherently are beholden to the structure and process defined by the power(s) that established them, this restricts the participation of those who may not be able to work within these defined organizational structures. Cornwall notes that “full participation”, which includes all stakeholders, is something that is never achievable and that to account for this, “explicit or implicit choices are usually made as to who might take part” (2008, pp. 276-277).

Further, as participatory processes seek to still maintain a “deep” and “wide” participation base, they incorporate methodology that places “greater degrees of emphasis on the participation of representatives - those who speak about and for a particular interest group” (Cornwall, 2008, p. 277). Furthermore, Cornwall highlights that “the use of categories to distinguish between different segments of ‘the community’ leads outside agencies to treat these categories as unproblematic and bonded units. Those who are put into these categories [...] may not see themselves in these terms at all” (2008, p. 277).

Weaknesses

The methodology used by the Victoria-Saanich citizens’ assembly which placed statistical quotas based on demographics that ensured a representative participation pool of people of different racial, housing/socioeconomic, gender, and age categories (Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly). This methodology is problematic for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it doesn’t account for equity as it relies on the principle of equality. While the demographic quotas are representative of the population as a whole, it fails to address that certain groups may be more affected by amalgamation, particularly those who rely more on municipal services. This idea is compounded by the unpaid volunteer model which is the basis of the Victoria-Saanich citizens’ assembly. As already discussed, those who volunteer their time are already very likely to already have similar sets of interests, motivations, and/or capacities, regardless of demographic identities. The idea of volunteer bias and the reliability of representation within the Victoria-Saanich citizens’ assembly and similar models of participation raises the question of the legitimacy of this process.

As the assembly is beholden to the structure, the decisions or consensus reached by the citizens’ assembly has likely been influenced by the bias (implicit or explicit) built into it by the powers that created this invited space and set the boundaries of participation. By creating a volunteer-based invited space with set demographic quotas and a set structure informed by consultants hired by the government that lacks any real power to enact change, the consensus of the Victoria-Saanich citizens’ assembly has been shaped from the beginning by the goals and motivations of the powers that created this space.

Strengths

Although Cornwall highlights the risk of relying on invited spaces as forms of public participation, particularly through the use of categorized participation, they do still note that invited spaces can help to form a spark that can lead to an increase in popular (invented) engagement (2008). Particularly, invited spaces provide a legitimate setting to publicly air grievances and can introduce people to and educate more people on issues that can motivate them to pursue action outside of the invited spaces (Cornwall, 2008). Also, by providing a space for citizens to discuss and advise the government, the government is acknowledging an appreciation for public input and provides an opportunity for citizens to be much more involved in their government’s decisions beyond voting, even if it is in an advisory capacity, which is very important for a healthy democracy.

Influence, Outcomes, and Recommendations

Meaningful Inclusion of Underrepresented Voices

A consistent and central fault in participatory planning models is the recruitment strategy. Creating equitable and representative groups is a complex equation that must account for numerous variables that are often hindered by time commitment requirements and lack of funding to fairly compensate participants. Ensuring a balanced and representative cohort is integral to the success and validity of participatory planning, thus is regarded as a fundamental pillar in designing models that account for positionality variables such as geography, race, gender, and income. In this, researchers must determine relevant stakeholders while accounting for budget and logistical constraints. Although the Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly recruitment and civic lottery model was strong in the features described above, it was deficient in accommodating socio-economic status and capacity limitations of potential participants, thus excluding important voices before the official selection process. To further decrease the exclusion of relevant participants, the design process itself could include a more participatory lens and be developed in conjunction with underrepresented groups.

Inclusion of Unhoused People

First, the effort made to include unhoused residents of Victoria and Saanich in the project lacked understanding of the cohort's realities and resulted in no representatives from this cohort in the citizens assembly. With a central benefit of amalgamating being cost savings and an increased efficiency in resource use, it can be expected that unhoused people will be impacted by the new system change, thus should be included in the discussion. MASS LBP reserved and distributed 50 invitation letters to unhoused residents with the support of Our Place Society, however, in analyzing their recruitment model alongside the structure of the citizens assembly, it is clear that the act was largely performative. The invitation to participate alone does not absolve the barriers that exist for socio-economically disadvantaged people. Barriers continue to exist in the project’s rigid attendance requirements, lack of compensation, and varied meeting points. The design of the Victoria-Saanich Citizens' Assembly can be improved to accommodate socio-economically disadvantaged groups by including members of this cohort in the design process to better address their needs to increase representation.

Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples

Second, it would be remiss to ask, does MASS LBP’s equation for selecting a representative cohort maintain colonial forces? With varied aspirations by Victoria, Saanich, and British Columbia to work towards a state of reconciliation, the effort to include Indigenous peoples in the recruitment process was lackluster and contained implicit biases that would maintain the region’s colonial structures. MASS LBP’s Representation Model calculated a recommended 4 Indigenous people in their citizens assembly to represent the populace. However, the current demographic of the region is directly caused by the violent forces of settler colonialism. Because Indigenous residents are continuously fighting for governments in Canada to uphold their commitments to UNDRIP and TRC calls-to-action and with this project being completely government funded, MASS LBP should be cognizant of the colonial biases in their facilitation design.

The Representation Model implemented in the recruitment process to design the civic lottery provides data solely on current demographics. By using a lens that does not account for Indigenous history, the citizens assembly propels the status-quo. Thus, this participatory model uses planning as a colonial tool that continues to harm Indigenous people and communities. The representation of 2 Indigenous perspectives does not represent a Planners commitment to build meaningful, reciprocal relationships with Indigenous communities. Further, the recruitment strategy does not respect Indigenous connection to the land as amalgamation would directly impact Indigenous residents and without their representation in the citizens assembly, a major community’s knowledge of the land is not considered in deliberation with the citizens assembly that is made up of predominantly settlers. Considering the six years of lead up from inception in 2018 to the distribution of letters in 2014, MASS LBP had ample opportunity to develop relationships with local Indigenous communities to ensure that local Indigenous communities were represented in the citizen’s assembly.

A recommendation to increase participation and representation of underserved communities such as unhoused and Indigenous peoples discussed above, MASS LBP can increase their use of a human-centred lens in the design process of their intervention as planning frameworks such as Co-Design can create space and address power structures that harm disadvantaged communities.

Inclusion of Public Identified Knowledge

Because the agenda for expert presentations was determined by facilitators, the process reinforced a hierarchy of knowledge—privileging certain forms of expertise over others—and reproduced existing power dynamics that can limit the outcomes of civic assembly engagement. In response, we recommend creating structured opportunities for assembly members and the broader public to identify what forms of knowledge they consider important for decision-making, and to participate in determining which experts or community knowledge-holders should be invited. At the same time, it is important to recognize areas where the government holds essential technical knowledge, ensuring that institutional effectiveness is not compromised for the performative sake of participation.

Strengthening the Political Impact

There are several ways to strengthen the political impact and legitimacy of Citizens Assemblies. One key approach would be for governing bodies to provide a direct and public response to the Citizens’ Assembly’s recommendations. This response should clearly explain how the recommendations will be effectively implemented if accepted, or, if rejected, why they were deemed unfeasible (Boswell et al., 2023). This requirement would increase transparency and place greater pressure on decision-makers to meaningfully engage with the recommendation made rather than symbolically engage with it.

Political impact could also be strengthened by extending the role of the Assembly members beyond the recommendation process. For example, participants could be involved in a follow-up committee or serve as representatives who directly communicate and discuss the Assembly’s recommendations with governing bodies. As Boswell et al. (2023) demonstrate, this ongoing involvement of Assembly members can help strengthen the often broken connection between the public and the government and improve the likelihood that recommendations have a political impact.

Legitimizing Informal/Invented Public Engagement

In order to ensure that people's voices are properly heard and that democracy is not confined into the defined boundaries that the government determines, the government must make a serious effort to support invented spaces and to legitimize the opinions and engagement that they provide. This is summarized by Cornwall succinctly:

“The popularity of invited participation may have created many more seats at many more tables, but along with all the other costs that those who fill those seats have to pay, this may have further costs to democratic vitality. The challenge for community development is to be able to both enable those who take up these seats to exercise voice and influence, and help provide whatever support is needed – material, moral and political – to popular mobilization that seeks to influence policy through advocacy rather than negotiation. The state has a role to play in this, especially in respect of marginalized groups (Young, 2000 as cited in Cornwall, 2008). Taking up that role accountably and supportively, without taking over and tutoring ‘the people’ to speak to power in ‘acceptable’ ways (Barnes, 2006 as cited in Cornwall, 2008), is one of the challenges that efforts to stimulate community development through participation needs to address” (2008, p. 282).

To maintain a healthy and vibrant democracy, the voice of the public should not be limited to demographic quotas and invited participation, but should be a healthy balance of both invited and invented participation. To ignore the invented is to ignore the marginalized masses, to ignore the invited is to ignore the value of education, due process, and public order.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (2019). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388

Boswell, J., Dean, R., & Smith, G. (2023). Integrating citizen deliberation into climate governance: Lessons on robust design from six climate assemblies. Public Administration, 101(1), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12883

Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 1–15). Zed Books.

Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings, and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010.

CRD. (2025, June 11). Regional Transportation Service Bylaw Approved. Retrieved from

Capital Regional District: https://www.crd.ca/news/regional-transportation-service-bylaw-approved

District of Saanich. (2024). The District of Saanich Economic Development Strategy. Saanich: City of Saanich.

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public administration review, 66, 66-75.

Gąsiorowska, A. (2023, October 1). Understanding the policy impact of Citizens’ Assemblies: a dispatch from Gdansk. Deliberative Democracy Digest. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/understanding-the-policy-impact-of-citizens-assemblies-a-dispatch-from-gdansk/

Government of BC. (2025, February 6). Regional districts in B.C. . Retrieved from Government of British Columbia: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/facts-framework/systems/regional-districts

Sorauf, F. J. (1957). "The public interest reconsidered." The Journal of Politics, 19(4): 616-639.

Statistics Canada. (2023, November 15). Saanich Census Profile. Retrieved from 2021 Census of Population: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm

Statistics Canada. (2023, November 15). Victoria Census Profile. Retrieved from 2021 Census of Population: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm

Victoria‑Saanich Citizens’ Assembly. (2025.). Victoria‑Saanich Citizens Assembly.

https://www.victoriasaanich.ca/

Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly. (2025). Victoria-Saanich Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation: Final Report.

Wilson, R., & Mellier, C. (2023, October 10). Getting Real About Citizens’ Assemblies: A New Theory of Change for Citizens’ Assemblies. European Democracy Hub.

https://europeandemocracyhub.epd.eu/getting-real-about-citizens-assemblies-a-new-theory-of-change-for-citizens-assemblies/

Zomerman, D. (2021, January 19). Victoria's amalgamation frustration: why there are still 13 municipalities in BC's capital. Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/victoria-saanich-amalgamation-crd

Contributor Positionality Statements

We are graduate students in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia (UBC), located on the traditional, unceded territories of the Musqueam people. Our members include settlers who identify as white, racialized, and mixed sexual and gender identities that inform each of our unique lived experiences. While our diverse backgrounds contribute to the understanding and analysis of the subject matter, we are predominantly influenced by western academic planning theories and institutional discourse.