The New Toronto

COLONEL ROYCE:

Mr. Minister, Monsignor, Dr. Ross, gentlemen--politics, according to Stevenson, is the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary. Johnson, Samuel Not Lyndon, equally acidulous, adds his view that politics are nothing more than a means of rising in the world. Our speaker would have needed no such assistance. However, Aristotle, writing three hundred years before Christ, gave his opinion that man is by nature a political animal and as politics is the art of government, the true artists in this field--and we have some in Ontario--deserve our gratitude and esteem for they are rare creatures indeed. Such a man is our speaker today for certainly no one without marked artistic talent could manage to control a team of thirteen horses which appear determined to gallop off in all directions and who from time to time look longingly over the fence at their former fields where the grass, of course, is much greener in retrospect than it ever was in reality.

To pursue this equestrian simile too far would inevitably lead to trouble and I shall now turn to the somewhat more pedestrian business of the background of our speaker.

As is traditional among the residents of Toronto, who are always born somewhere else, our speaker was born in Ottawa; however, he attended school here and is a graduate of St. Michael's College School, the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall. For a brief period he served as a bank officer, leaving that school of endeavour for the army however, I am quite sure that this was not because he loved Cesar less but that he loved Rome more--any suggestion that he preferred a slit trench to a bank is entirely erroneous and probably fostered by a trust company. Our speaker served for five years in Canada, Britain and north-west Europe, reaching the rank of captain.

Returning from the army, he entered Osgoode Hall Law School and was called to the Bar in 1949, being appointed Queen's Counsel in 1960. In 1950 he was first elected Alderman for Ward One of the City of Toronto and in 1965 he was elected Controller of the City of Toronto-the youngest Controller ever elected, he has remained undefeated in civic elections. Passing through a number of important positions, in 1962 he became Chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Council, a position to which he brings tolerance, tact, humour, grace and a special sort of distinction. Among his many assets is a wife of exceptional charm.

I mentioned earlier that Aristotle described Man as a political animal, someone--probably not Aristotle--also mentioned that it isn't the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog that matters. Certainly our speaker has never backed away from a fight for those things he considers important to the welfare of this city and province. It is my honour and privilege today to introduce William R. Allen, Q.C., Chairman, Metropolitan Toronto Council.

MR. ALLEN:

Topical and now most important in municipal government for this area is the Goldenberg Report. This is not a report drawn from the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Office in Ottawa but rather a review, with recommendations, of prosperous, pragmatic, positive, progressive local government in this metropolis; evidenced by a twelve-year record of accomplishments and achievements not otherwise possible; and receiving such national, continental and international attention that it may truly be said we have been a world leader in this field.

The nineteenth century formula for elected councils recognized the highly dispersed and strongly rural accentuated economy which prevailed in this country and province at that time. Cities, towns, rural villages and farmland townships were the forms of municipal organization. The urbanization of large numbers of people, an identifiable mark of the twentieth century, demands revisions to that which was adequate over one hundred years ago. The metropolis, as a cluster of cities, towns, villages and formerly rural townships, will grind to a halt, unable to produce that which its citizens require unless there is a form of area municipal government to be contrasted with the isolated, solitary, almost self-sufficient municipality of the 1800's.

This exemplified itself in the Metropolitan Toronto area, a cluster of thirteen municipalities which had been fully exposed to the present century concentration of population, in the form of internal competition for available money to be loaned, an inability to co-ordinate planning in any way so that the city proper burst at the seams and the overflow was growing up "like Topsy"; water rationing; septic tanks; public transportation available only in the city with various private lines servicing the twelve other municipalities; traffic stagnation-remember the little bridge over the Humber at the western gateway to Toronto, the Eglinton Avenue of that day which terminated in the east at Victoria Park, the Sunday night jams in Hogg's Hollow?

It was the combination and cumulative effect of all these situations which led to the creation of a metropolitan, or regional, or area municipal government for this metropolis.

To each of those problem situations the Metropolitan Toronto government has provided a visible answer, possibly overlooked until one casts a mind back to 1953. Nonetheless, the experience of the past decade has disclosed procedures and developments which would indicate fertile soil for further improvement in the future. These were the tasks assigned to Dr. Carl Goldenberg-to assess the structure, organization, purposes and objectives of the Metropolitan Corporation and the Metropolitan School Board; and to make such recommendations as may emerge out of this assessment.

The recommendation which seems to have caught most public attention is that which advocates the establishment of a four-city, or borough, structure. In my opinion, whether it be four or any other number of units, the importance of this recommendation is in the fact that it constitutes a solid and emphatic endorsation for the continuation of a metropolitan form of government for this area. Satisfied that much has been accomplished during the past ten years or more under this form of municipal government, Dr. Goldenberg rejects complete amalgamation of the 240 square miles with a population approaching two million people in favour of a continuation of the federated type of municipal government for which we have become so conspicuous.

Amalgamation cannot be dismissed merely because of the successful record of metropolitan government. The Report refers to and relies on many other bases. It must not, be forgotten that we are talking about local municipal government, responsive to the wishes of the people. To combine the area responsibilities now discharged by the Metropolitan Council with the local responsibilities still discharged by each of the component Municipal Councils could create a situation that is not conducive to maintaining the standard which has been set during the past twelve years as the result of the division of these responsibilities between the two types of municipal council. Amalgamation of 240 square miles including 25 % of the population of Ontario, can only provoke a repeat situation ten years hence when development has moved beyond today's perimeter. The question then becomes what area shall be incorporated within the amalgamated area of today. The principle of amalgamation involves wider and wider extension of boundaries; sooner or later, local government has been removed. Contrasted with this is the effect of a federated council comprised of members of the constituent local councils. This form of municipal structure lends itself admirably to the constitution of truly regional municipal government. A large measure of our success has been the role played by those members of local councils who also serve on the Metropolitan Council. Their dual loyalty has led to a comprehensive knowledge of all that is being undertaken at both levels, at the same time facilitating their decisions on what should be done at the local level consistent with regional development. Finally, if one wishes to reduce this to a matter of cost, a complete merger of all municipal forces within the area would immediately result in higher cost as wages and fringes are unified at the level of the highest cost unit within the area. Additional cost would also be incurred by a drive for all services to be raised to that which prevails in any one of the municipalities, whether it be the number of weekly garbage collections, number of libraries, sidewalks on both sides of the streets, removal of overhead wiring or what have you. Unification can only mean standardization at a higher cost. It is a proven axiom that per unit cost increases directly with the size of government unit. One might query the ability of a single council to make decisions in respect to such diverse situations as the development of the south side of Queen Street in the City of Toronto, the construction of a land disposal site or incinerator in an orchard in the Township of North York, the approval of plans for a shopping plaza in the township of Etobicoke larger than Yorkdale, and the future development of the Metropolitan Toronto Island. While these were being debated, there would be at least another fifty thousand people entering the metropolitan boundaries, requiring housing, servicing and employment opportunities.

Having recommended a continuation of the federated, metropolitan form of government, the Goldenberg Report then moves on to the form it should take. Actually, we have a borough form of government today. There are thirteen constituent local governments within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The wide variance in population between a number of these, seven with populations of less than 25,000 each, although all having an equal vote, has presented an unjustifiable situation. A continuation of thirteen municipalities could no longer be accompanied by a prolongation of the present system of voting within the council. Recognition of this has led to most current discussions in public centring on the Goldenberg plan or a sixunit division within the metropolitan area.

In this situation I believe it must always be remembered that the city proper plays a role in the metropolitan area which may in some ways defy statistics. In 1953 the city represented 63 % of the assessment in this area. Now, that has decreased to 45%. However, without that 45%, or a substantial portion of it, this metropolitan area could not be what it is nor continue as it is. To support that statement I ask you to picture the lineup of motor vehicles from the outlying municipalities into the downtown area each morning, for return each evening. Picture the financial and business institutions which line the main streets of downtown Toronto. Remember that those buildings provide jobs and employment opportunities which are so necessary to many thousands of those who live beyond the city limits. Meditate on your pride in that breathtaking structure which houses the metropolitan and city administrations--a focal point of tourist acclaim; a centre of expression for Torontonianism. Imagine Metropolitan Toronto without the harbour and waterfront of the city. In substance, I say that the role of the core of the area, the city, must be taken into account in any realignment of municipal boundaries within this area. The sight of deterioration is only too prevalent in older metropolitan areas in the country to the south of us. From their experience we must learn that the hub, the centre is vital; without a heart there is no need to talk about the head or the arms or any other member of the body.

In opposition to the recommendation of the Royal Commission it has been stated that there is perpetuated the city-suburban split. To the best of my recollection, as Chairman, I have yet to be called upon to cast a tie-breaking vote on a straight city, non-city line. Ties I have broken on occasion, but not due to a division of votes by council members on this basis. If anything might be said with validity in opposition to the recommendation, I would direct my thoughts to the fact that an even larger, and more populous unit is being created. You will detect in this viewpoint a theme to which I referred some moments ago in that responsive local government cannot expand indefinitely and infinitely. The points which I state in argument against complete amalgamation apply to a degree to a proposal which would increase the population of the city from 650,000 to 900,000 people. Increased cost, unwieldiness and inability to reach conclusive decisions are the factors which deserve consideration in this regard.

Another phase of the Goldenberg recommendations relate to the definition of area services, the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council, as distinguished from local services, the continuing responsibility of the local councils. In this limited time I would direct a few remarks to the "municipal social services"-welfare, health and housing.

Several years ago the Metropolitan Toronto Act was amended so as to render the Metropolitan Corporation liable for the municipal share of all mandatory welfare costs within the area. This recognized the singular position of the City of Toronto with a tremendous preponderance of welfare assistance cases, not unlike any other urban metropolis on this continent. The transfer of costs for this service from the City Council to that of the Metropolitan Council permitted each and every taxpayer throughout the area to share in what is a regional economic problem. To this extent the taxpayer in the City of Toronto was relieved. However, unlike other metropolitan obligations, administration of welfare services remained with the local unit: the welfare department in each of the municipalities. Briefly, this formula separates administration which is retained on a local basis from the financing function which is on an area basis. This is a practical approach to a type of service which involves individuals. Its application to other fields within this ambit commands serious attention if only due to its acceptable success in the field of welfare.

Public housing has attracted considerable attention of recent date. Just another instance where a problem has arisen within the older sections of the city proper not unlike any other city at the hub of a metropolitan development. The solution is not to be found within the boundaries of the city alone. The situation will be solvable only by an area-wide involvement. While the creation and role now being undertaken by the Ontario Housing Corporation is not what the Metropolitan Council approved in 1962 and 1963, we have given it 100% support so that its efforts could be spread over all parts of the metropolis. I feel that a concentration of all available public housing stock, other than accommodation for senior citizens and the aged, would enhance the opportunity for meeting the long term problem as well as the emergency situations which arise from night to night.

During the past six months clear lines of responsibility have been established. The provincial agency, Ontario Housing Corporation, has accepted all responsibility for meeting the public housing need in Metropolitan Toronto; for obtaining the necessary capital money which requires no contribution by municipal governments; in short, they say, tell us what you need and we will provide it.

Centralization has been long wanted. Lack of it explains our failure in this field. It is with these impressions that I feel all resources should be centralized, should be concentrated, in the hands of the provincial agency if only to remove the final vestige of divided authority which is continually leading to indecision, backbiting, useless controversy-everything except housing units. The Metropolitan Council has agreed that it will pay the municipal share of annual operating losses, thereby spreading the cost over the thirteen municipalities. Again this decision would seem to make it most difficult to justify the continued financial involvement of any of the thirteen constituent municipalities as individual units. The acceptance by the senior levels of government of the capital financing of public housing and the lion's share of annual operating losses is a most encouraging step towards full responsibility for those services which should not be any charge against the real estate taxpayer.

Of course, the time allotted is all too short to deal properly with the entire subject. I have attempted to deal with the salient points. These are the points from which a solution and formula will be logically developed to meet those fields in which we have been found wanting in the past.

Having listened to discussions on this topic for more than fifteen years I am satisfied that the worst error which can be made by anyone is the thought of being dogmatic. Flexibility and susceptibility to change are mandatory. Emotionalism will accomplish nothing but possibly lead to short-sightedness and error. Predominant in our thoughts should be the realization that this is our community. We all have a share in the pride for its accomplishments. We all have a responsibility to contribute our best efforts and thoughts to ensure those accomplishments. No group, more than you, should be aware and realize that the future of Metropolitan Toronto as the English-speaking metropolis of Canada will be just as great as you care to make it. Your feelings can be translated no better than by effort. Participation in public issues is always welcomed by one in public office who deplores apathy. If I have aroused thoughts in your minds today this will have been a success for me as we try to lead the people of Metropolitan Toronto along the road where decisions will be made to give you the finest of municipal services with a type of government which offers an example to all other levels.

Thanks of the meeting were expressed by Lt. Col. R. H. Hilborn, M.B.E.