It is very easy to argue that Ryerson is already on par (if not surpassed) York U. The near-constant strikes at York University has made Ryerson the more desirable university for those who you know, want to complete a degree in 4 years without disruption. The admission standards at Ryerson have been slightly higher than at York U for near a decade.
Ryerson and George Brown have definitely gotten closer, and there is already a lot of flexibility in some programs such as nursing and early child education (where many complete 3 years at GBC and transfer to Ryerson for the 4th year). That being said, Ryerson and George Brown have different student demographics and their programs attract different markets and price-points. Generally speaking, Ryerson is more focused on academic and professional education, whereas George Brown is more specialized in vocational education.
You need to ask what does a merge bring to the table and whether the schools really stand to benefit over the status quo. There may be some areas of overlap (nursing, early child education, and the theatre school) between the two schools where a merged program could have economies of scale, but I think it would be overall beneficial for the two schools (and different student demographics/markets) to continue specializing within their markets. Ryerson is competing with UofT and York. George Brown with Humber and Seneca.
One area though that I would be curious to see some more flexibility and cooperation might be Ryerson's Chang School of Continuing Education. They could benefit from access to George Brown's facilities, teaching and student pool, but again, Ryerson's Chang school is a direct competitor to many of George Brown's part-time diplomas.
