1 January 2001
When the bell on the Peace Tower finished tolling midnight to usher in the twenty-first century, a new era began for the City of Ottawa. After months of political wrangling and name calling, ten urban municipalities and rural townships amalgamated with the old City of Ottawa to create a super City of Ottawa. Many likened the amalgamation to a shotgun wedding, forced upon unwilling communities by the Ontario provincial government. Gone were the cities of Nepean, Kanata and Gloucester, Cumberland, and Vanier, each with their distinct histories and characteristics. Gone was the affluent Village of Rockcliffe where Canada’s Governor General resides. Swept into the dustbin of history were the rural farming townships of Rideau, West Carleton, Goulbourn and Osgoode. Erased too was the old Regional Municipality of Ottawa that had hitherto co-ordinated regional services. The eleven regional and municipal governments were replaced by a single-level government. The population of the new Ottawa more than doubled from 327,000 to 775,000 people, while is geographic size increased more than twenty-fold from 110 to 2,778 square kilometres—equivalent to the combined size of Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. Much of this land was countryside. Consequently, when entering Ottawa from the south, a visitor to the Capital will see stables and placid bovines instead of office buildings and harried civil servants.
The amalgamations and the accompanying angst were nothing new. Since it became a city in 1855, Ottawa has annexed many towns and villages that were once distinct as it grew from its original, downtown core. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it took over Mount Sherwood (located in the neighbourhood of Bronson Street and Gladstone Avenue), Rochesterville (where Rochester Street is today close to Dow’s Lake), the Village of New Edinburgh, Ottawa South, and Ottawa East. (Main Street, which is located in Ottawa East, was the main street of that community. This explains why Main Street, typically the principal thoroughfare in any town, is located in a comparatively out-of-the way place in modern Ottawa.) Other annexations included Hintonburg, Bayswater, and Orangeville.
In 1950, Ottawa annexed the Village of Britannia and large chucks of Nepean and Gloucester Townships. Losing 7,420 acres, Nepean became a rural township, stripped of urban Westboro, as well as Westboro Beach, and its beloved Nepean High School. It even lost its town hall then located on Richmond Road. Gloucester was also gutted, losing 14,000 acres, including Billings Bridge. Many protested. Legal suits followed, largely to no avail.
With the continued growth of Ottawa and the neighbouring communities, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton was established in 1969 to help co-ordinate the delivery of region-wide services and development. Originally, regional councillors were appointed by the municipal councils with the regional chair elected in turn by the regional councillors. This changed during the early 1990s when the regional chair and the regional councillors begun to be elected directly by voters.
The switch to directly-elected regional councillors was the writing on the wall for the region’s future. In 1992, Graeme Kirby, the reform commissioner appointed by the NDP government of Bob Rae, had shied away from recommending regional amalgamation, having met very stiff opposition. However, he strengthened the authority of the regional government by recommending its direct election by the people. As well, the regional municipality took over the delivery of the bulk of municipal services including police, water, sewage, mass transit, garbage collection, arterial roads, and regional planning. Could full amalgamation be far behind?
The death blow came with the 1995 election in Ontario of the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris and its “Common Sense Revolution.” Faced with a record budget deficit, the new Ontario government was determined to cut municipal transfers by achieving efficiencies through the reduction the number of municipal governments in the province by roughly half from approximately 830 to about 400. The governments of cities, towns, and townships across the province were shocked. The infighting over who would survive began.
Here in Ottawa, Peter Clark, the Regional Chair, favoured a strengthened regional government. Jacquelin Holtzman, the mayor of Ottawa, wanted a single, region-wide, municipal government. Meanwhile, most other area mayors advocated replacing the regional government by an unelected, cross-boundary service board that would be run by the eleven municipalities. All these positions seemed self-serving. Subsequently, views coalesced into two alternatives—a single big city solution and a three-city solution consisting of Ottawa, an eastern city centred on Gloucester and Cumberland, combined with other eastern townships, and a western city centred on Nepean and Kanata, combined with other western townships.
A Compass poll of 500 persons undertaken in October 1999 concluded that a narrow majority of 52 per cent of respondents across the region favoured a single mega-city. However, most of these supporters lived in Ottawa where 61 per cent of residents polled preferred the one-city solution. In Nepean and Kanata, the single city option garnered only slightly more than a third of the votes. This was seen as a “win” by supporters of the single-city option as it could have been worse. However, Mary Pitt, Nepean’s mayor at the time, indicated that in the 1997 municipal elections, 84 per cent wanted an independent Nepean, but if amalgamation was to occur, three-quarters of Nepean residents supported the three-city solution.
In November 1999, Glen Shortliffe, a former clerk of the Privy Council, who had been appointed by Ontario government as special adviser on amalgamation reported that in his opinion “the case for one city [was] overwhelming.” He also rejected the creation of boroughs to represent neighbourhoods, arguing that a simple, uncluttered system was best. Neighbourhood issues could be dealt with by individual councillors. He also recommended the merger of the five municipal hydro companies. In recognition of the large Francophone minority in the region, the new city would be bilingual. He also recommended that a transition board be established to develop a new governance model and administration for Ottawa with a one-year mandate.
The provincial government of Mike Harris accepted Glen Shortliffe’s recommendation and passed a special City of Ottawa 1999 Act to implement them.
The Transition Board, headed by Claude Bennett, a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister and former Chairman of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, consisted of seven people chosen by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Premier Harris. The group became widely known as the “gang of seven.” Alex Munter, a regional councillor at the time, called the Transition Board “an undemocratic junta, appointed by Queen’s Park.”
The Board placed the cost of amalgamation at $189 million, of which the province would pay $142 million. The city would only have to pay the remaining $47 million. Of the $189 million in costs, $4 million was for transition board operations, $102 million was due to severance costs, and $83 million was allocated to investments in information technology. The Board also estimated the savings from amalgamation, in large part due to a reduction in personal of roughly 1,100 positions, would amount to $30.7 million in the first year, $55.7 million in 2002 and $84 million in 2003. Contrary to many hopes and expectations, the Board did not forecast any tax reductions owing to amalgamation.
The Board also identified the decision-making process and the roles and responsibilities of the new city council, set out the organizational structure of the new City of Ottawa, hired senior staff, developed a 2001 budget, and provided recommendations on city services and service levels. It furthermore made recommendations regarding staff levels, municipal utilities and public works. (See the Transition Board’s final report released in January 2001.) The Board also developed a new coat of arms for the new city. However, this was one recommendation that was later quickly rejected by the incoming City Council after amalgamation. Instead, Council voted to keep Ottawa’s historic coat of arms granted to the city in 1954 by letters patent of the King of Arms, the Duke of Norfolk. Critics of the proposed coat of arms called it “meaningless,” “sterile” and “an embarrassment,” and even a “heraldic abortion.”
Kicking and screaming, amalgamation took effect on 1 January 2001. In the lead-up to the big day, some municipalities took the opportunity to celebrate, or perhaps more accurately to hold a wake. Kanata reportedly spent $15,000 on renting the Corel Centre (now the Canadian Tire Centre) on New Year’ Eve as a venue for a series of performances. The afternoon show included singer and songwriter Jack Grunsky, followed by a battle of bands and acts playing cover songs of the Backstreet Boys, Ricky Martin, Britney Spears and others, with fireworks at 5:00pm. At 9:00pm that night, there was dancing and performances of the Legends of Rock n’ Roll, playing cover tunes of Patsy Cline, Buddy Holly, Mick Jagger, Elvis Presley, Tina Turner, the Village People, and more. Tickets costed $9 for the afternoon performance and $32 for the gala evening show.
After amalgamation, the massive work on harmonizing eleven different sets of municipal by-laws, fees, and service levels began. Personnel, buildings, IT systems also had to be combined and rationalized. Duplicate street names had to be renamed to avoid postal confusion; you don’t want two Elm Streets in the same city. Sixteen years after amalgamation, at least 60 streets remained to be renamed, owing to the lengthy consultation process with stakeholders.
Was amalgamation a success? It depends on who you talk too. Taxes were reduced in the 2001-2002 by ten per cent across the board. A 2010 article looking at the first ten years of amalgamation cited an unnamed city report saying that taxes of 80 per cent of homeowners in four of five rural municipalities—Goulbourn being the one exception—declined post amalgamation (Amalgamation Yes.)
However, savings have been offset by the downloading of services from the province and investment costs associated with rehabilitating downtown Ottawa’s old infrastructure. A 2015 study by the Fraser Institute of eight Ontario amalgamations (Ottawa was unfortunately not included in the study) found that the intended benefits of greater efficiency, lower taxes and reduced bureaucracies did not materialize (Miljan and Spicer). A similar 2013 study of Toronto’s amalgamation concluded that gains from economies of scale were unlikely to be achieved by large city mergers, though there might be other benefits such as addressing externalities (Slack and Bird).
The urban-rural divide within Ottawa continues to be problematic. Urban issues, such as rapid transit and densification, are of major concern for urban voters, but not so much for rural voters, who resent paying for things they don’t use. While rural Ottawans may have better access to certain services post amalgamation, for example libraries, other services, such as city water and sewage service, count for little if you use a well and a cesspit. Rural residents also have resented increased regulation over land use and the loss of police services as policing resources are concentrated downtown where the bulk of crime occurs. On the other hand, urban councillors are outnumbered by rural and suburban councillors on city council. Sometimes, it may seem that the tail is wagging the dog.
Not long after amalgamation, a rural, grassroots movement emerged with the aim to “de-amalgamate” the rural areas from greater Ottawa, and recreate the old Carleton County. Signs reading “Carleton County—Now” began sprouting on utility poles in rural parts of the city. However, as it became increasing clear that amalgamation was not to be reversed, combined with meetings to thrash out rural problems, this quixotic movement began to fade with the focus shifting toward working to improve governance and to find ways of ensuring that rural needs were not overlooked by the city.
Still, many have looked back in regret. Ten years after amalgamation, Mary Pitt, the last mayor of Nepean, reportedly thought that amalgamation was a “big mistake,” as did the Marianne Wilkinson, the last mayor, and later councillor, for Kanata. Clive Doucet, a long-time former city councillor, has also been very critical of amalgamation. He argues that amalgamation, not just in Ottawa but across the province, killed the political voice of old communities leading to a lack of accountability. He cites the myriad problems associated with Ottawa’s light rail transit system as symptomatic of the problem. Urban sprawl and overdevelopment are worse than ever.
Almost a quarter century after amalgamation, the jury is still out. We can only hope that Ottawa can live up to its motto—”Advance-Ottawa-En Avant.”
Sources:
Amalgamation Yes, 2010, “Ottawa Amalgamation 10 Year Anniversary,”2 January.
Doucet, Clive, 20??, “What amalgamation did ,” Glebe Report.
Mijan, Lydia and Spicer Zachery, 2015. “Municipal Amalgamation In Ontario,” Fraser Institute.
Oldfield, Amy, 2023, “Stuck with the suburbs,” The Leveller, February.
Ottawa Citizen, 1947. “For Unified Control In Annexation Areas,” 7 August.
——————, 1949. “Court Dismiss Appeal In Issue of Annexation,” 25 February.
——————, 1950. “Will Ottawa Be Short Changed?”, 7 January.
——————, 1995. “Harris says region over-governed,” 28 November.
——————, 1995. “Tory cuts offer a challenge to Ontarians,” 30 November.
——————, 1996. “Holtzman promotes vision of one-tier government,” 19 January.
——————, 1996. “Selective municipal mergers wasteful if one-tier is the real goal,” 2 May.
——————, 1996. “The city fixer almost no one wants,” 18 December.
——————, 1996. “Rural areas have valid concerns about regional police takeover,” 11 June.
——————, 1997. “Merger Mania,” 9 January.
——————, 1999. “We want one city, residents tell pollster,” 9 October.
——————, 1999. “Day 2: Urban versus rural,” 14 October.
——————, 1999. “Shoreliffe sees end to political division,” 27 November.
——————, 2000. “One city, one hydro, board says,” 14 March.
——————, 2000. “A worthy city’s worthy coat of arms,” 29 May.
——————, 2000. “Board unveils coat of arms for new city,” 8 November.
——————, 2000. “New city coat of arms is sterile, meaningless,” 15 November.
——————, 2000. “Denying the past,” 20 December.
——————, 2000. It’s party time in the Capital,” 21 December.
——————, 2000. “City of Nepean,” 27 December.
——————, 2000. “Goodbye to a region, Ottawa’s founders would be proud,” 31 December.
——————, 2001. “‘Cold and soulless’ city crest under fire,” 6 January.
——————, 2001. “Bogie and Bacall storm City Hall,” 6 January.
——————, 2001. “Ottawa honours its history,” 26 January.
——————, 2017. “Renaming duplicate streets drag on 16 years after Ottawa’s amalgamation,” 10 August.
Ottawa Journal, 1949. “Nepean Reave,” 25 March.
Ottawa Transition Board, 2001. “The New City of Ottawa: Fulfilling its Potential.”
Rosenfeld, Raymond and Reese Laura, 2003, “The Anatomy of an Amalgamation: The Case of Ottawa,” State and Local Government Review, Vol 35. No. 1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 57-69.
Slack, Enid and Bird, Richard, 2013. “Merging Municipalities: Is Bigger Better?” Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, No. 14, University of Toronto.
Today in Ottawa's History 