Panelists discussed their view on Toronto’s amalgamation and whether or not it served the city well
Photo courtesy of Flickr user Damian Entwhistle
On April 16, the students of George Brown College’s (GBC) Institute without Boundaries (IwB) presented their Discussing Division: The De-Amalgamation Debate.
A panel of experts hosted a lively discussion, bringing both expertise and solutions to the table while engaging the students and community alike. This was the second part of a three-part series.
For those unfamiliar with the amalgamation, it is essentially the process of unification. Before Toronto became a ‘mega-city’, there were six smaller municipalities. On January 1, 1998, City Hall merged them together into the mega-city that it is today.
The decision was ordered by former Premier Mike Harris, making ‘the city’ as we know it 17 years old.
The issue was a complex one, and was closely moderated by Christopher Pandolfi, academic co-ordinator for IwB.
Stefan Krzeczunowicz, senior consultant specializing in municipal finance and management at Hemson Consulting Ltd., did not believe any financial benefits were made almost 20 years later, and that the quality of services had suffered as a result. He didn’t advocate for de-amalgamation as an alternative, and stated that it would not make financial sense to do so.
Alan Redway, former mayor of East York and author of Governing Toronto: Bringing Back the City That Worked, was the only proponent of de-amalgamation. His opinion was that communities should be included in the decision-making process, essentially getting back their local identity.
David Rider, urban affairs bureau writer at the Toronto Star, pointed out that there was a major divide between urban and suburban points of view.
“The city has major governmental and economic divides, if we are to become as successful as we appear to be,” said Rider.
Director of the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance at the University of Toronto, Enid Slack, believed that the city was an impasse and that neither state was preferable over the other.
“Do I believe it was a good idea in 1998? No. Do I believe de-amalgamation would be a good idea now? No. That might sound odd, but we wouldn’t fix any problems like transportation and economic development. There’s also an equity component and I don’t want to see us lose regarding the distribution of services,” said Slack.
One IwB manager, Heather Daam, shared her thoughts on the development of the event.
“This is the second year we have collaborated with Arup on a lecture series, and as the academic co-ordinator I made sure the event was arranged and gave space to the students to provide input to the content of the panel discussion,” said Daam.
The purpose of the event was to build relationships for the IwB and to provide opportunities for the students.
“The event itself is also a great opportunity to open the IWB’s doors and invite others to explore our research topics,” said Daam. “It’s a great chance to build networks and build relationships with the amazing speakers.”
The date for IwB’s third and final part of the series, Visualizing Division, has yet to be announced.
