Amalgamation vs. Cumming Plan

MR. GRIFFIN: Members and Guests of The Empire Club of Canada: The background material for today's address to The Empire Club is to be found in the headlines of today's papers. I daresay that never before in the history of this Club has a President been privileged to introduce a speaker on a subject that was so topical, so timely, so closely geared to a leading question of the hour. For several years now public discussion has raged about the subject of the amalgamation of Toronto with its satellite municipalities or some measure of co-operation and co-ordination of their essential public services. I think the fear existed in many of our minds that this question might become another St. Lawrence Seaway issue, a topic often discussed but never decided. Just twenty-four hours ago our subject "Amalgamation vs. Cumming Plan" was a matter of public debate and private speculation. Today it is the subject of formal resolution on the floor of the Provincial Legislature. While there have been, are today and undoubtedly will be in the future many opinions about the bill which Premier Frost introduced in the Provincial Legislature yesterday afternoon, nevertheless, gentlemen, there is a virtue in certainty. There is value in knowing where you stand even if you don't like your position there. Amalgamation, expansion and growth are nothing new in the history of our great community. The original little garrison settlement of 17)3 was bounded roughly by George Street, Duchess Street, Barkley Street and the waterfront. In 1834 when the city of Toronto came into existence the boundaries were approximately Niagara Street, Dundas Street, Parliament Street and the waterfront. We have come a long way since that time.

Our speaker today, Controller Leslie H. Saunders, is a native of London, England, who came to Canada as a boy. His qualifications to speak to us on the subject he has chosen are well established as he has spent ten years as a member of the Toronto City Council. The Empire Club of Canada, whose real field of interest is Canada and her place within what our beloved Queen called "The great Imperial Family to which we all belong" is proud and happy to devote a meeting to a consideration of this vital municipal question.

CONTROLLER LESLIE H. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. President for the welcome and for the invitation to be here. You honoured me in asking me to speak on this perhaps most important subject that will be before us in a good many days; and I want to thank my colleagues of Council for doing me the honour of coming and bearing with me, because much of the material I have to produce has been rather routinely referred to before but some of you may not have all the information about what brought the city's amalgamation question to a head.

Then I also realize my appearance here is somewhat of an anti-climax. You know now, if you did not know before, what exactly the Government's attitude is.

I have broken down my talk under a few headings:

(1) What the City asked for?--I think it is well to bring ourselves up to date.
(2) Why the City asked for amalgamation.
(3) Some facts about the situation at that time.
(4) The Cumming Report.
(5) The Reaction of the City to it.
(6) What the Cumming Report actually recommended and if I have time, a few remarks on what has happened since I prepared these notes (Bill 80).
(7) Then a summary.

(1) In February, 1950, the City of Toronto made application for amalgamation of 10 suburban municipalities, plus parts of two others. The parts were in Etobicoke and Scarboro. We revised it in May that year because the Municipal Board said something to the effect that they had no power to order amalgamation of a part of a municipality, so we changed the Order and the application then read, "the entire 12 municipalities". As it was then designated, it was passed by Council by-law in May of that year. The vote in Council at that time was 17 to 2. The two were Aldermen Freed and Alderman Nathan Phillips.

(2) Now why did we make this application? I have a copy of the Board of Control's report, and I want to quote one or two statements from it.

The first refers to a meeting which the Premier of this Province had with the Mayor and Reeves of the Greater Toronto area, and I quote from the words of the Premier. This is his statement:

"With a great future before Greater Toronto the present difficulties are bound to increase. The situation is not a static one but rather one which will be magnified as time goes on. The 13 municipalities comprising Greater Toronto have a present population of approximately a million people, approximately one-quarter of the population of Ontario. I am sure we all want to reach a solution which will provide for essential municipal services on the most sensible and equitable basis, and having regard for the ever-increasing requirements of one of the world's greatest cities and urban areas which will be constantly expanding.

"What we need is to appraise the difficulties which exist in the individual municipalities and then assess them in relation to the needs of the whole area, in order that some common solution may be found.

"From the reports which have been made and public discussions and investigations over a period of years, it is thoroughly plain that the present situation is not satisfactory. As I stated before, the problem concerning this area is a municipal system which is going to meet the needs of our people. Human welfare and betterment is of paramount consideration, and I think the time has clearly arrived when the representatives and people comprising the various municipalities in the Toronto area should face up to the situation."

Then the Report goes on to say why.

On the next page is set forth some of the advantages in one or two schemes. It says:

"There are two basic methods by which the solution of these problems may be achieved.

1. The transfer of services to one or more administrative commissions so that the cost of such services could be equitably distributed over the whole area and, where advisable, uniformity in quality of service established. This method presents two alternatives:

(a) The establishment of separate commissions for each service.

(b) The delegation of the administration of a group of services to some authority as a Public Utilities Commission, a Board of Management as contemplated in Section 23B of the Municipal Act, a Metropolitan Council or a County Council, all of which are variations in principle of what is known as the Borough System.

"In both cases it would be necessary that assessment would require to be equalized for the purpose of distributing costs and each municipality concerned would be required to transfer to the commission, or commissions, all of its assets and powers relating to the service, or services, in question."

2. The second basic form of administrative set-up that offers for the solution of the problem involves the unification of local governing bodies into one central administration. Such a system is free from the many shortcomings and disadvantages of the Commission method or Borough System as noted above. It cannot only assure the most efficient carrying out of all the matters that might be entrusted to any Commission, Board of Management or Metropolitan Council but can also control that most important question of land use, the neglect of which is the basic cause of all municipal difficulties."

Then it goes on to list evidence of the need for some action

The application of the Town of Mimico for a Board of Management.

The application for the amalgamation of Long Branch, New Toronto and Mimico.

The application for incorporation as a City of Forest Hill Village, the Township of York as a city and the recent suggestion for amalgamation of Etobicoke, Long Branch, Mimico and New Toronto.

Application to the City in 1931 by York and East York Townships for annexation to the City.

Those were some of the facts set forth in the application, and the City said this when making its application:

1. The integration of the municipalities progressively at fixed dates and the alteration of such dates by the Ontario Municipal Board when found to be necessary.
2. The right of the City Council to make representation to the Ontario Municipal Board in respect to any application for approval of capital expenditure by any municipality prior to integration.
3. The continued employment of all full-time employees of the municipalities so unified and of their respective Boards of Education.

I have already quoted the Premier's interest in the matter. May I say that just prior to that, the Toronto and York Planning Board (in December, 1949), recommended the amalgamation of eight suburban municipalities. I brought in a motion to implement that, which motion is embodied on page 8 of this report. We were compelled, we understood, to take some action because of the fact that Mimico itself had applied to the Municipal Board for an order of amalgamation of certain services. If Toronto erred at all it was on the area that it suggested to be amalgamated, not on the solution of the problem.

First it was eight municipalities, then we said ten and parts of the other two and finally all twelve.

(3) Now what were some of the facts at the time the City had this argument in Council? Toronto had grown from an original 10,000 acres to close to 26,000: its land area had increased by 21/2 times, and there had been no annexations for upwards of 40 years.

In 1908, East Toronto was taken in with 602 acres, West Toronto in 1909 with 1,609 acres and North Toronto with 2,701 acres in 1912.

And with what result? Those of you who have lived in or know anything about what was originally East Toronto, what was West Toronto, and North Toronto, would be able to determine whether that action was a proper one, whether it was worthwhile in the light of what we see today in the areas integrated.

Toronto's assessment was approximately $1,300,000,000. The outside 12 had about $200 millions. If reassessed on a basis comparable to Toronto, they would have approximately 1/2 billion dollars. On a population basis it should be 3/2 billion dollars. The more favourable position of Toronto is accounted for by the fact that there is a large concentration of industry and business in Toronto proper. Of course, the outside municipalities are bound to benefit by Toronto's industrial expansion. It could be argued, too, that if the services in the suburbs were similar to ours, all things being equal, the cost of government would be the same. If the other Municipalities had the same services that the City of Toronto has they would have to pay for them. Surely, where they did not have them, the tax rate should be a lot lower.

Toronto's cost of government had increased (from 1939 to 1949) 22%, Leaside was up almost 50% in four years (1945-1949) and about 60% was for education. York Township's rate was 89.8 mills, and I believe it is now over 100. Long Branch had been reassessed up one-third yet its tax rate dropped only 13 mills instead of 23.37 mills.

Following the war, municipal costs accelerated considerably. The fact is that, in the main, Toronto had and has all the services it needed and needs; the only thing we did not have was land, and that was necessary if we were going to have any housing development.

The question is: how could some of these smaller municipalities operate if they were not close to, or joined to a large city? You could not imagine any small municipality isolated in the country which would be without a properly established fire department. The fact is they are close to a large municipality and can enjoy all the facilities of a well organized and efficient fire department and transportation system, all of which are created on Toronto's credit.

In one municipality the tax bill looks a bit like the tax bill I get for my cottage. They charge a lot of separate items, sewer area, garbage collection, school area, county rate, etc. We set one item, 41.8 mills. There are other factors which add costs to the householder: higher telephone rate: transportation to and from school. One man told me it cost his family $35.00 a year to have the children brought to school. I have not time to deal with all those points just now.

One answer given by Clive Sinclair (Reeve of Etobicoke) to our amalgamation plea, was to amalgamate Toronto with York County. He also stated that Toronto was "a sick cousin", "an economic crisis has been developing in the city for the past twenty years" and that Toronto was in "financial difficulties"; so he advocated there should be a metropolitan county to take over Toronto's assets. It was suggested at the time that Toronto would get five members as against twelve for the outside Municipalities.

So now, after nearly three years, the Municipal Board has recommended something akin to what was suggested at that time by the former Warden of York County.

(4) Now let us have a look at the Cumming Report. These are the reasons that Mr. Cumming and Mr. Moore give for declining to approve of the City's application for amalgamation. On page 28 it says, "In the first place the board has been forced to conclude that the issue of any order for the amalgamation of these thirteen municipalities comprising a very large and important city, four towns, three villages and five townships would result in immediate and prolonged administrative confusion of the most serious kind."

(No. 2) it says: "In the second place, in the opinion of the board, the immediate creation of a single municipal government would result in a substantial increase of taxation due to the practical necessity of bringing all suburban wage and salary scales and working conditions up to city levels, which in most cases are higher than in the suburbs."

It is quite possible they will come up to the city standards anyway.

(No. 3) "The third and very serious objection to the scheme of local government proposed by the city is the proposed concentration of all municipal duties and responsibilities in a single all powerful council which would be expected to deal wisely and adequately with both local and metropolitan problems." Yet there are Councils in cities all over the world many times as large as ours which deal with all these problems under one governing body.

Page 30: "A fourth serious objection to the city's proposal has been the subject of anxious consideration by the board throughout the hearing. Briefly stated, the board has entertained grave doubt whether the need for reform of local government in this area justifies and requires the complete dissolution of the existing municipal institutions and the creation of a form of government which appears to be bitterly opposed by eleven of the thirteen local municipalities concerned."

Those were the chief reasons given by the Municipal Board for rejecting Toronto's application for amalgamation. Now I want to quote something which entirely contradicts the very summation of their argument.

Page 32: (this follows what I have just read on pages 30 and 31. This is on page 32, the same person speaking!) "The practical and technical advantages of complete consolidation must be frankly admitted."

Page 25: "The Board has therefore no hesitation in finding on the whole evidence that the applicants have clearly proved the need of some major reform of the existing form of local government in the Toronto metropolitan area."

Page 27: "In the opinion of the Board there are certainly many obvious advantages in a completely centralized and consolidated form of local government which would follow an outright amalgamation of the thirteen municipalities." I think that is rather clear. The gentlemen who heard the case of the city admit the advantages for outright and complete integration. But on the top of page 28 the Board says, "Nevertheless the Board, after giving the most earnest consideration to the whole evidence . . ." etc., comes to some other conclusion. That is where I consider the 'hidden hand' came in. The real opinions were given quite clearly and established the case of the city with advantages to accrue from a complete integration. Then they say, "Nevertheless;" "we are in favour of amalgamation. But".

Now what does the Cumming report do in respect to the amalgamation of the area? It suggests a superimposed additional administrative council, appointed, and, later, to be elected. I will say that is not necessary, and even if it was necessary, it would be a costly thing. Some members outside of Toronto have conjectured it would cost $1 million.

On page 74, it recommends that the new Council should take over Assessment, Taxation and Finance. That is, it would have complete control over all the city's assets without compensation or adjustment. They would take over our debt. That is not a very large one at the moment.

But they would take over all our assets, perhaps 1/2 billion dollars, without compensation or adjustment. This new Council would have power to turn the assets over to Boards or Commissions; the local governments to be left to collect the taxes.

Education was to come under the Metropolitan Council, not necessarily under the control of public school supporters. The Bill brought down yesterday changes that.

The local Council would have very little left-garbage collection, play lots, sidewalks, some roads, health. The Metropolitan body would take over transportation, education, housing, assessment, water, sewerage, planning, highways, and possibly parks.

Now that is what is recommended should happen to Canada's second city, and, I think I would be correct in saying, the most important city in Business, Education, Wealth, Enterprise and progress. All the millions of assets of our public utilities, to be put into the pool. I don't know what would happen to the Canadian National Exhibition, our air fields, our parks, the Harbour, Langstaff, etc. All of these, I suggest, have been created and paid for by Toronto taxpayers, and on this city's foremost position of credit. These are to be turned over, with no compensation, to a group which, to some extent, will not be responsible to the citizens of Toronto. Instead of simplifying municipal government this would be adding an unnecessary burden and unnecessary confusion.

I listened to the introduction of Bill 80 in the House yesterday afternoon, as did members of the Board of Control. Reference was made by the Prime Minister to the so-called 'Borough System' of municipal government.

Herbert Morrison, former Labour Deputy Prime Minister, wrote a book entitled "How London is governed". London has a County Council. We speak of a "borough system", but that is a misnomer. The "boroughs' are a part of the County Council. Mr. Morrison refers to the value of a comprehensive and simple system of municipal administration, and he tries to portray what London might have been if they had had complete integration years ago: "We should not have known the ill defined sprawl of Greater London that has now evolved, cluttered up with a mass of special bodies for special purposes."

I think the Municipal Board was not realistic. They lacked foresight and courage in tackling the biggest problem of our generation. I'm aware of what Mr. Gumming actually did say in support of amalgamation. He argued that it had "technical and obvious advantages", but then recommenced just the opposite.

It is argued that under amalgamation we assume the liabilities of the entire area anyway, and the area benefits from all Toronto's assets, but under amalgamation all would be under one central control and Toronto would have the advantage of land for industrial expansion, housing and planning.

(5) When the City had the Cumming Report before it, we asked for the opinion of our officials. I have not time to read all of it to you, but I want to read two excerpts from a report which was signed by the Commissioners of Finance, Works, Planning, Assessment and the Corporation Counsel. These two statements are really important.

"Your officials view with real alarm the wide powers that it is suggested the said Council be given in financing and pledging of the credit of the city over local suburban matters, in which the city can have no interest and over which the city will have no control. Over many years the City of Toronto, by sound and conservative financial administration, has built up a confidence on the part of investors which is today reflected in one of the highest credit ratings in Canada and the United States. It is no wonder then that we are genuinely alarmed at any proposal for the pooling of the resources of the metropolitan area for the benefit of the area as a whole without the control which the City has the right to expect."

"In transferring the authority to the proposed council to settle and provide for the budgets of subsidiary commissions the local councils would be called upon to levy the necessary taxes to provide the funds required without any control over the spending."

On that basis, the city appealed the recommendation of the Cumming Report. The issue clearly is, is amalgamation desirable and proper? The Municipal Board admits it is. Then why did they not recommend it, and why was the Government's action not in support of amalgamation? I'm not interested in looking for good points in a bad thing--if the principle is bad.

(6) I say the Cumming Recommendations are basically unsound and undemocratic. They are harmful to the city's assets and financial position. I understand that one of the firms which bought the city's bonds is circulating letters to private individuals trying to dispose of the bonds.

The entire city's financial position could be affected, because of the fact that under this scheme the city's credit is pooled with outside municipalities. The whole thing then is patently unfair to the people of Toronto.

Having said this, I think I should bring you up to date on what has followed the Cumming Report. Bill No. 80 was presented to the Legislature yesterday. Because of the complexity of it, I would imagine that it must have been framed before the Municipal Board report was released. I can't imagine that in the time since the Municipal Board Report was brought down, it would be possible to prepare this Bill 80.

The tragedy of this whole thing is that the Cumming Report showed the need of a solution of the area. It showed the desirable solution to be amalgamation. The Premier said yesterday, "I believed that partial amalgamation was the answer." The Premier's conversations in the past with former Mayor McCallum had quite a bearing on the city's attitude in first applying for amalgamation and then pushing its case. When he says, "partial amalgamation", I don't know whether he means "partial" or "progressive". The city did ask that amalgamation be done progressively.

Instead of facing up to the issue, the Government comes up with a plan which is not a solution, and which, apparently, has not pleased anyone. It does not suit the City of Toronto, and by reports in the papers, some of the constituent bodies outside are not pleased with it either. In fact, I think some are prepared to take amalgamation in preference to it.

The impracticability of this scheme is seen by anyone who has the slightest knowledge of Municipal government, when you figure up the multiplicity of departments, officials and services. Toronto is to get twelve representatives on this board. There are no sour grapes so far as I am concerned, as I am one of the twelve. But I am not an advocate of the scheme regardless of that. I can't see how it can work out. We have to give practically all our time now to the city and how can it be expected that we can divide our thinking and give a sufficient amount of time to put a metropolitan council with all its planning, into operation? Apparently the thought behind it is that it is not going to be a very heavy job as the members are to be paid $1,800 each. The Chairman is to get a salary comparable to the Mayor of Toronto. $15,000 is either too much money or $1,800 is not enough. The only reason for the $15,000 salary would be that the work would be done by one person and not by the council itself, which would have to make the final decisions.

Now if it is possible for 12 members of the civic government to divide their time and give half to this super council, it would be just as possible for the Premier of Ontario to reside in Ottawa and run the business of the Province of Ontario as well. This is an argument for the Premier of Ontario to handle the Federal Government as well, and I don't think it can be done; and I say that with some knowledge of municipal government and as one who attempts to put his mind to it.

You may not agree with my answer, but I have tried to bring my own thinking to bear, which is very important, on a problem which is a most serious one to this city.

(7) Now under amalgamation we would have a larger Council and a larger Board of Control. The Premier mentioned something about the big task it would be..

These other Municipalities have Councils now, and they would be represented. You would have everything under one head. You would have no division of duties or problems. All the area would be merged under one control. You would have integration accomplished gradually, and I imagine you could accomplish some overnight. Take the Works Department: suppose it was the Municipality to the north. I imagine that integration could happen in a day or so--you would merely join their staff with ours. You would not have two Commissioners of Works. The City of Toronto would control facilities for all, without need of two Works Departments.

In Toronto we must retain a Works Department. Where are the plans going? A street that crosses a highway may not be in the metropolitan plan so you are going to have two Councils functioning with two Works Departments, in the same area with plans, staff, etc.

Now if that is not complicated, I would like to know what is. The tragedy of the whole thing is, it will be costly. You will have two governments, one superimposed on the other, and, of course, an additional staff. We are told it will save taxes. I don't see how it can. Frankly, I have not argued that we would save taxes by amalgamation. I did not think so. If some of the outside Municipalities need services which at the present time they have not, our thinking was that the assets of the greater could be used to help the lesser, and in that all would benefit. The adjustment in the tax bill might be a few cents, but it would aid considerably a great number of people who, since the end of the Second World War (members of your family and mine), moved outside to get housing accommodation.

We felt our duty was to protest this Cumming Report; and we did it, we think, courageously and in a dignified manner. Our Solicitor's Department prepared an Appeal under Section 97 of the Municipal Board Act. What has happened to it, I don't know.

I question that the province has any right to confiscate the assets of the City of Toronto. These belong to the people in the City of Toronto. I remember that when a former government took over the Separate Schools in Ottawa because of the violation of a regulation, the Privy Council ruled that while it was all right for the Province to try to enforce its regulations, it had no right to take over the schools: they belonged to the school supporters. And I suggest to you, the assets of Toronto belong to the people, and the Province will have a hard time to enforce it.

Bill 80 is not exactly what was in the Cumming Report so whether the scheme is accepted or not, I think the City of Toronto can take some credit because of its united front against the scheme. If we have failed in total victory it is not our fault. Nineteen members of Council acted. The Mayor failed to voice Council's opinion, and, on more than one occasion, has expressed his own opinion, which was contrary to the Council of the City of Toronto.

I think the Government is evading its responsibility and lacking in courage. If there is fear of political repercussions in handling the problem (and it may be that amalgamation is not acceptable to some of the outside municipalities, but they are not pleased with the Government's answer either) we have suggested there should be a plebiscite of the entire area. Toronto wants amalgamation. Those who favour the Cumming proposal suggest this will lead to amalgamation at some future time. I do not share that view. I believe if we miss this opportunity now, it is gone forever. I cannot see that the setting up of another body, creating a super government, with new departments, offices and staff will lead to amalgamation. Once that is done, we will be further removed than ever. We will find ourselves in the same position as London, England, in that it did not tackle the job when it could have done and should have done so.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Mr. Eric Hardy.