Background

Hamilton's Amalgamation History Lesson

by Tony Colvin

1849:
Establishment of Wentworth County and townships, including Flamborough East Flamborough West, Beverly, Ancaster, Barton, Saltfleet, Glanford and Binbrook; see http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/CountyAtlas/wentworth.htm

November 24, 1969:
Hamilton-Wentworth Local Government Review. Donald R. Steele, Q.C. (Chairman), Brian Morison, Q.C. and Edwin A. Jarrett reported after six weeks of public hearings.

May 28, 1973:
Province offered Hamilton and Wentworth County the choice of two systems - 1 tier and 2 tier.

July 30, 1973:
Legislation providing for regional government (Bill 155) passed

January 7, 1974:
Inaugural meeting of Regional Council with Ann Jones as appointed Chairwoman.

September 20, 1977:
Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Government Review. A three man commission comprising Henry Stewart (Chairman), Dr. James Johnson, and Harold Dixon was formed to examine every aspect of regional government, consider modifications in the two-tier system, possible duplication of costs and even a return to a one-tier system.

May 10, 1978:
The report was released from the Stewart Commission. It recommended that a new city of Wentworth replace the city of Hamilton and the surrounding communities in a one-tier government with 27 aldermen, each representing one ward. June 16, 1978: the recommendations were shelved by the provincial government.

January 19, 1995:
Terry Cooke announced a Constituent Assembly consisting of a 15 member volunteer group chaired by Chester Waxman and Don Granger (ex-mayor of Flamborough and now sitting on the OMB) with a mandate to come up with recommendations for restructuring municipal government. The final report was released on April 3, 1996 recommending replacement of the 7 area councils with a single body of not more than 30 members.

July 5, 1996:
Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Council voted down the Constituent Assembly recommendations by a vote of 20-7.

October 2, 1996:
Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Council voted to end regional government by a vote of 17-10.

October 24, 1996:
Gardner Church was appointed as a facilitator by Ontario government.

November 9, 1996:
An agreement was reached with the 'Final Memorandum of Negotiations' recommending a one-tier supercity that would do away with local communities and have a 33-member council. The suburban areas would have parity in number of members with Hamilton.

December 11, 1996:
Hamilton city council voted against the Church recommendations.

December 16, 1996:
Ernie Hardeman is appointed to negotiate.

January 1997:
public hearings were held.

February 8, 1997:
The suburban communities held a referendum unsanctioned by province. The vote was Yes: 1,740 No: 29,814.

February 14, 1997:
The Hardeman report was released recommending a 19 member supercity council.

February 24, 1997:
Toni Skarica MPP announced the Skarica plan, recommending scrapping regional government and keeping all six local governments.

February-March 1997:
All area councils endorsed the Skarica plan.

March 11, 1997:
Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Council approved the Skarica plan with amendments.

11 March 1997:
Skarica plan. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Council voted 18-8 to dismantle the regional government, strengthen municipalities and work cooperatively to deal with regional needs.

May 20, 1997:
The Ontario government "abandoned" regional reform in Hamilton-Wentworth for the present.

January 1, 1998:
Provincial downloading led to the streamlining and amalgamation of some regional and city departments.

February 19, 1998:
The Administrative Structure and Best Practices Steering Committee of the Region, following consultation with the City of Hamilton, proposed to amalgamate Hamilton and the region but leave local councils in the suburban municipalities. This proposal would take effect January 1, 2001.

April 18, 1998:
The plan was debated at regional council but no consensus was reached and the report was sent back to committee to deal with the concerns raised.

May 9, 1998:
The proposed restructuring was again debated at Regional Council. It passed 16-9 (3 absent). Municipal Affairs Minister Al Leach announced that he would support the plan as long as it had the majority support of area councils. The proposal was sent to each council for debate and ratification.

May 14, 1998:
Hamilton City Council voted 10-4 in favour of the proposed merger.

May 20, 1998:
Dundas rejected the proposed merger 7-2.

May 25, 1998:
Flamborough rejected the proposed merger unanimously.

May 26, 1998:
Stoney Creek rejected the proposed merger 8-1. With the majority of suburban municipalities rejecting the merger, the plan died.

May 28, 1998:
Municipal Affairs Minister Al Leach rejected a demand that the province impose a solution.

June 18, 1998:
Two private members bills had been proposed. Neither was dealt with before the end of the legislative session and therefore could not be passed or implemented. Skarica Plan: a revival of the earlier Skarica Plan, and the Agostino Plan that asked for the appointment of a mediator to lead to an imposed restructuring. This plan received first reading before the legislature rose for the summer vacation.

April 6, 1999:
The Province gave the Region $25million to help pay the costs of the administrative merger of the City and Region. These costs included staff cuts, early retirement, voluntary departure and redundancies.

August 24, 1999:
Municipal Affairs Minister Steve Gilchrist announced that an advisor would be appointed to examine the question of municipal restructuring in Hamilton-Wentworth. The advisor would hold 60 days of public consultations on restructuring and then make a recommendation to cabinet to make the final decision.

August 28, 1999:
Dundas (9-0), Flamborough (7-1) and Ancaster (5-1) voted to try to merge into a united City of Wentworth.

September 24, 1999:
David O'Brien (City Manager of Mississauga) was named Special Advisor by the Province.

October 19, 1999:
Three days of public hearings began.

October 23, 1999:
Steve Gilchrist resigned as Minister of Municipal Affairs (after accusations of demanding campaign donations in return for meetings while his 1984 conviction for tax fraud surfaced) and was replaced by Tony Clement, (who remained the Minister of the Environment and co-founder of the Canadian Alliance. Wearing all these hats he denied that he read a draft document prepared by the Environment Ministry's water policy branch warning of serious concerns related to water testing and reporting procedures, and noting that a number of smaller municipalities were not meeting water-monitoring or reporting requirements, with cost the main reason for non-compliance. It also noted that private laboratories - forced on municipalities by the government in 1996 - had no responsibility to notify health officials if they discovered bad water, and this loophole would delay the boil-water advisory in Walkerton by at least two fatal days. Clement would eventually realize the potential backlash to forcing communities into amalgamation, and order a halt to forced mergers after Dave Johnson lost his seat in Toronto. That move, however, only came after amalgamation became an issue in the Peel area that he represents and Chris Hodgson decided he couldn't win again and resigned).

May-June 1999:
During the election, Harris promised voters living around Hamilton that he would respect a local decision on the issue.

November 26, 1999:
David O'Brien submitted his Final Report & Recommendations to Clement. He ignored the results of a local referendum decisively and quickly moved to create the Hamilton Supercity, which prompted the sudden resignation of Hamilton-area MPP Toni Skarica and the Tories' defeat in the subsequent by-election.

December 6, 1999:
Bill 25, Fewer Municipal Politicians Act for the forced amalgamation of Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton, Sudbury and Haldiman-Norfolk. Section 37(1)b provided the cabinet with the ability to make any changes to any laws passed by the Ontario legislature that the cabinet, in its full and absolute and sole discretion, deemed to be worthwhile.

Tuesday December 14, 1999:
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni; "I support one tier as the member representing Hamilton Mountain but find it very difficult, and I said this before our leader said it, on the Roy Green Show with all the members present from the Hamilton-Wentworth region, because it is undemocratic, very possibly unconstitutional and financially not in the best interests of the region".

December 15. 1999:
Mr Brad Clark: "When I ran in the election I made it very clear that my constituents come first, and I stand by that. I stated very clearly and unequivocally throughout the campaign that I opposed the megacity, and I stand by that. ... At the end of it, everyone agreed they would like to see Glanbrook and Stoney Creek merged together as a united city..... They came up with a solution. Eighty-five per cent of the residents in my riding supported the tri-city agreement; 93% opposed being annexed or amalgamated into Hamilton. Therefore, when I stand in the House today-and it's not an easy feat to stand and speak against your government, nor is it an easy feat to vote against them-I am opposed to Bill 25 and will vote against it. I have no choice. My constituents come first."

February 2000:
Liberal polling showed Tories with 28 point lead in Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot Toni Skarica resigned.

June 16, 2000:
Merger Mania by Andrew Sancton, Professor of Political Science at University of Western Ontario published the idea that merging municipalities would improve local services and economic competitiveness originated in the nineteenth century with the first US municipalities being merged in 1848. New York was merged at the turn of the twentieth century and was effectively bankrupt by 1975. In contrast metropolitan Boston - often see n as a recent success story in global competition - continued to comprise 282 distinct municipalities. Outside the United States, forced municipal mergers were a popular policy in many European countries and Canadian provinces during the 1960s and 1970s, producing the city of Laval and the "unicity" of Winnipeg. Neither succeeded. Despite the emergence of "public choice" theory - which justifies municipal fragmentation on market principles - some politicians and public servants in the 1990s continued to advocate municipal amalgamations as a means of reducing public expenditure, particularly in Ontario. This approach has generally not saved money, and Sancton examined the history of recent forced mergers in Halifax, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, and Sudbury.

September 8, 2000:
Ted McMeekin elected MPP by 20,000 to 10,000 for Priscilla de Villiers.

February 15, 2001:
Press release: "Now that Premier Harris has decided that there will be no further forced municipal amalgamations in Ontario, it is time for the people of Hamilton and area to have a voice in deciding for themselves whether the New City of Hamilton is working," said Liberal Municipal Affairs Critic Ted McMeekin. Today, I am asking the provincial government to do the right thing and allow the citizens in each of our municipalities a direct vote sometime prior to the next provincial election on the important question of whether we are better off as a result of this amalgamation."

November 12, 2002:
MPP Chris Hodgson, Minister of Municipal Affairs, appeared before City of Kawartha Lakes Council to ask Council to request a referendum on de-amalgamation. Council passed a motion making that request. Mr. Hodgson then appointed a panel to recommend the referendum question. On December 20, the panel released their report to the Minister and the public, unanimously recommending the question to be put to the voters.

December 10, 2002:
Hamilton City Council refused to ask Hodgson to put a question on the ballot. Council Minutes: "Question on the Ballot respecting the issue of Municipal De-Amalgamation A motion by Councillor Mitchell on the above matter was deferred with the instruction that correspondence be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs requesting the official government position on de-amalgamation. Councillor D'Amico and Braden indicated that the wished to be recorded as OPPOSED to this item".

January 8, 2003:
Mr. Hodgson decided the referendum on de-merging Kawartha lakes will be held along with the municipal election on November 10 2003. The question: "Are you in favour of a return to the previous municipal model of government with an upper-tier municipality and 16 lower-tier municipalities?" Chris Hodgson then resigned, saying he would not run again.

April 14, 2003:
Jean Charest elected Premier of Quebec on a platform permitting citizens of forcibly merged supercities to decide on de-merger in a referendum.

C.D. Howe Report
Local Government Amalgamations:
Discredited Nineteenth-Century Ideals alive in the Twenty-First

by Robert L. Bish

Read the report

Note: This is in pdf format, which requires Acrobat Reader (147 K)

Visit the C.D. Howe Institute web page at www.cdhowe.org

De-amalgamation Networking Conference a Huge Success!

Rockton, ON
May 15, 2004

Guest speakers were:

The following declaration was approved by representatives of each municipality and community group:

Rockton, Ontario, May 15, 2004

WHEREAS the government of the Province of Ontario has seen fit from time to time to force upon many residents of Ontario the amalgamation of local municipalities into larger municipal entities without the consent of those local residents;

AND WHEREAS it is believed that, first and foremost, municipal government should address the needs and aspirations of the residents of municipal communities;

AND WHEREAS it is believed that the structure of municipal government and any change thereto should be based upon the consent of local residents;

AND WHEREAS the government of the Province of Ontario has seen fit to ignore the result of a vote on a Minister's Question pertaining to the structure of municipal government in the City of Kawartha Lakes, and petitions from Chatham-Kent, Flamborough, Dundas, Ancaster, Stoney Creek and Glanbrook;

AND WHEREAS the government of the Province of Ontario continues to ignore the reasonable request from the residents of several Ontario communities to consider the de-amalgamation of those same communities;

AND WHEREAS we believe in the advisability of creating an Ontario-wide alliance among like-minded communities to pressure the government of the Province of Ontario to permit the de-amalgamation of any community in which the demand for de-amalgamation has been or shall be demonstrated by traditional concepts of democracy.

NOW THEREFORE the following people declare the creation of, and our support for, the Ontario De-amalgamation Network and its reasonable and lawful objectives as shall be defined by its members from time to time.

Selected Quotes On Amalgamation, Democracy And Referenda

Dalton McGuinty and John Gerretsen

Dalton McGuinty

No one really believes the amalgamation is going to save money.
December 16, 1996

Will you allow a referendum on your megacity before you ram this through?
December 16, 1996

This morning you made an announcement on this issue of megacity madness. In some ways it's a complicated issue, but in others it's not so complicated. For the people in Metro Toronto it's going to mean three things, quite simply: (1) higher taxes, (2) fewer services and (3) there's going to be a lost sense of community.
December 17, 1996

To the same minister: I want to be very, very clear on this just so there's no doubt. The Liberal caucus is against your megacity. We're going to fight you on this.
December 17, 1996

With each passing day, people are becoming more and more aware that your megacity madness is about three things: mega-taxes, mega-cuts to services and mega-dictatorship by the province.
December 19, 1996

Premier, once more: You said, "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity." You said, "Why destroy our roots and pride?" You said, "I disagree with restructuring, because it believes that bigger is better." Finally, you said, unequivocally and very, very clearly, "Services always cost more in larger communities," and you said that with complete conviction. So why is it that you are bent on proceeding with amalgamation in so many communities across the province, but especially here in Metropolitan Toronto?
February 12, 1997

Democracy is rarely convenient and tidy. Instead, it's a slow and messy miracle. At its heart, it means that people must have a say in how they are governed. They must have a say on the future of their communities. Democracy clearly imposes a responsibility on people. It's their responsibility to understand the choices before them, and it's their responsibility to choose wisely.
March 4, 1997

Democracy imposes responsibility on those who govern. Democracy gives the people a voice, but it also compels those who govern to listen to that voice. Democracy isn't just something that takes place once every four years. Democracy is what is supposed to happen in a free society each and every day.
March 4, 1997

There's a fine line between leadership and being out of touch and I suggest to the members opposite that to ignore the clear and unequivocal results of the referenda would not be to show leadership; it would be to ignore the will of those you represent.
March 4, 1997

Any member of this Legislature who dares to ignore the will of the people, which has been duly expressed by way of referenda held yesterday, is putting their own political career at risk. Premier, your megacity was a mistake.
March 4, 1997

The people voted no. There is nothing left to interpret. It was simple, straightforward and unequivocal. They said they are against turning six cities into one. End of story. They don't want amendments;
March 4, 1997

Despite all the fine speeches delivered during the course of the election and prior to that about direct democracy and how you believe in the importance of referenda, you are about to ignore the clear and unequivocal results from last night's referenda.
March 4, 1997

In fact, I remember when Mike Harris was campaigning in the town of Fergus and someone asked him about amalgamation, and he said: "Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring, because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities." He was right. Mike Harris was right, but that was then and this is now. Leader of the Opposition Mike Harris was a great defender of local government; Premier Mike Harris sings a completely different tune.
March 4, 1997

Not only are taxes going to go up; you should know that there's going to be a resulting loss in services and, just as importantly, there's going to be a loss of a sense of community.
April 1, 1997

I remember the good old days when Mike Harris used to speak in favour of referenda. I remember when he said the government should listen to the people it serves. But that was then and this is now. Opposition leader Mike Harris used to listen to people. Premier Mike Harris runs roughshod over them.
April 21, 1997

You can send a loud and clear message that it's not okay for the Premier and a small group of ideologues in his office to ignore the people of Ontario and those they elected to represent them. It's not too late, in fact it's never too late, to stand up for real democracy instead of sledgehammer democracy.
April 21, 1997

The evidence is overwhelming and beyond dispute. A megacity will cause property taxes to soar, it will cause services to be cut and it will make government even more remote from the people it is supposed to serve.
April 21, 1997

They didn't say, "No, unless they make some token changes," and they didn't say, "No, unless they make some minor amendments." They said, "No." They said, "No means no," and they said, "No means no megacity."
April 21, 1997

Listening, Premier, is a good thing. It's not a sign of weakness; it's a sign of strength.
June 3, 1997

In March of this very year we had the megacity referendums where over 400,000 people came out and voted against this government's proposals. So when this government tells us that it is interested in listening and interested in learning and interested in bringing about change as a result of what they have heard, they are not telling us the truth. It's as simple as that.
September 18, 1997

I defy this minister to stand up and tell us how it is in keeping with democratic principles that 75 people can be allowed to sign a petition and compel a commissioner or this minister to impose a restructuring solution on a community. I defy this minister to tell us how that is in keeping with traditional democratic principles that have been articulated and developed century after century after century right across the free world.
December 7, 1999

If a city wants to make a decision about the municipal restructuring plan being imposed on it, you get to decide whether or not the citizens of that community have a right to vote on that. Minister, if that isn't censorship, if that isn't dictatorship, then tell me what is.
December 8, 1999

John Gerretsen

I think we should also be talking about the megacity project. What's this all about? You talk about an anti-democratic move that's being put on by the government; I can't think of one that's more anti-democratic than that, because basically less representation means there will be less of a democratic influence on people's lives and on the public institutions that we all hold so dearly in this province.
December 16, 1996

There is a complete inconsistency by the government. They are saying on the one hand, "Yes, we like the concept of referenda," and on the other hand they're saying, "Yes, but not in this case." It seems to me that the only kinds of questions they want to ask in a referendum are ones they obviously agree with and that somehow will limit the role of government in the future.
December 18, 1996

Mr. Clement has talked about referendum legislation with the Legislative Assembly committee on a number of occasions, urging the other members of that committee to endorse the concept of holding referendums. This is a perfect opportunity for that to actually take place, on an issue which is clear-cut and focused.
January 20, 1997

This whole notion that if we somehow got rid of local politicians we'd all be better off is something I totally reject.
June 11, 1997

As I mentioned before, in a place like Chatham-Kent, if you get rid of 90% of your elected local politicians, when you go from 141 local politicians in total down to 18, you are simply not going to get the same kind of service, you're not going to get the same kind of response and you're not going to have the ability to speak to your local representatives in the same way you do now.
June 11, 1997

I have maintained all along that a bigger government isn't necessarily a better or cheaper government, and that seems to be the modus operandi this government is operating under, that as long as we get rid of all sorts of local governments and get rid of more and more politicians, local politicians, then somehow we'll all be better off.
June 11, 1997

What we're talking about with all these amalgamations is, number one, less democracy. The kind of input the local citizen wants in this local decision-making process will simply not be the same if the politicians he or she wants to have contact with are going to be further and further removed from the process and are going to represent larger areas with many more people than they presently do.
June 11, 1997

I didn't agree with megacity and our party didn't agree with megacity and our party certainly didn't agree with the Fewer Politicians Act.
June 23, 1998

But the other thing about this is just the fact that it doesn't make sense, because these people are now paying for services that they're not going to receive. Remember, this was all sold to them on the basis that if we just allow for larger amalgamations, larger restructuring, then there will be all sorts of money saved, we'll get rid of a whole bunch of politicians, because after all, it's the local politicians that cost all the money.
November 24, 1998

This notion that if we have smaller councils we will be better off is absolute nonsense. I think that local councils ought to be truly representatives of the communities that they are.
December 14, 1999

I think the reason that the government's doing this is because they are bent on the notion that bigger is better. This is supposedly from a government that believes in less government.
December 14, 1999

Living in an urban community is totally different from living in a rural community. The kind of topics that get discussed at council, the kind of problems that are dealt with on a day-to-day basis, are totally and absolutely different. To put a rural area, which may be as much as 20 miles away, and in Ottawa-Carleton I would dare say some of these areas are probably closer to 40 miles away from the city centre, into a regional area, into a new city centre makes absolutely no sense.
December 14, 1999

The final point I want to make is that municipalities should be formed as a result of communities of interest. Putting vast rural areas with urban areas and calling it a new municipality just isn't right. It's not in the tradition of Ontario municipal government.
December 15, 1999

To lump large rural areas in with urban centres, rural areas which in some cases are 20 or 25 miles away from the urban centre, is just totally and absolutely wrong.
December 16, 1999

That is the main problem with all I've heard about the amalgamations or all the restructurings that have taken place. It is always the rural areas that lose out.
June 1, 2000

As you and I know, there's been absolutely no proof whatsoever, with all the actions this government has taken, that anybody has saved any money at the local level. Taxpayers aren't better off. There are many more services that have to be paid for at the local level and there's been absolutely no proof that all of this restructuring has saved any money whatsoever.
June 1, 2000

The government can take great pride in the fact that it has cut out thousands of local politicians across the province, but people have to realize that the amount of representation they get is going to be less and less and their ability to get to their local representatives is going to diminish more and more. I don't think that in the long run we are going to be better for it.
June 1, 2000