A meeting held in late July by the Capital Planning Region – which operates under the name the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region (WMR) – resulted in a flurry of public concern about what the WMR’s land-use plan will mean for residents of the 18 municipalities that are members of the corporation, as well as for people living in municipalities outside the WMR’s boundaries.
A second public meeting WMR scheduled in Niverville on Aug. 8 led to the RCMP being called in after hundreds of Manitobans showed up and tried to get into the hall, which was over capacity. The WMR said it will re-schedule the meeting to a future date in a larger venue.
If you haven’t heard of the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region and what it does, you’re not alone. The WMR has been operating quietly for the past few years with little public communication and with pared-down media attention about its purpose, what it can do with the legislated powers the former provincial government gave it, and how powers currently held by its member municipalities can be potentially sidelined.
The City of Selkirk is pulling no punches when it comes to its feelings about being a member of the WMR: it wants out.
Selkirk’s chief administrative officer Duane Nicol said Selkirk had been a “voluntarily” member of a previous iteration of the region in the 1990s under then City of Winnipeg mayor Susan Thompson. Collaborating with other municipal governments can be “a great thing” as long as it’s voluntary and municipalities maintain the authority to govern their own jurisdictions.
But Selkirk had been “forced” to join the new Capital Planning Region/WMR, which was created by the former provincial Conservative government under Brian Pallister. And it will have to abide by the policies set out in the WMR’s yet-to-be-adopted bylaw or land-use planning document, which is titled Plan20-50: A Regional Plan for the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region.
“Plan20-50 is a regional plan that all 18 member municipalities will have to follow, and it will [supersede] municipal development plans and municipal planning district policies. Effectively, it’s a new level of government that has been created by Bill 37,” said Nicol, who has been CAO since 2014 and served on council from 2002-2014. “The City of Selkirk has resolutions from council and it has gone on record stating that we don’t want to be part of Winnipeg Metro Region. We were forced into this. There was no consultation. We think this is bad for Selkirk residents and we think it will harm Selkirk in the long run. So we formally objected. We’ve also asked the minister to release us from this group.”
Nicol spoke at the first public hearing on Plan20-50 that the WMR held on July 25 in Winnipeg, saying the former government “used no data” to define the boundaries of the WMR. It just threw Selkirk into the mix without asking whether it wanted to join and against the “expressed unanimous opposition” of Selkirk’s council.
“Selkirk is not included within the Statistics Canada’s Census Metropolitan Region for Winnipeg because it does not meet the social and economic standards set out for inclusion by this expert body. Neither the province nor the Capital Planning Region can justify Selkirk’s inclusion within the region using any credible, defendable, social and economic rationale,” Nicol had stated at that meeting. “There was no data, research, or study that was conducted when the boundaries of the region were established. In fact, the boundaries were established against the most credible and valid analysis available – the work of Statistics Canada.”
When they were in power, the Conservatives introduced Bill 37, now called The Planning Amendment and City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act, to make changes to two pieces of existing legislation. The bill passed and came into effect in May 2021.
The legislation’s intent was to provide planning regions; it established the Capital Planning Region/ Winnipeg Metropolitan Region and determined what RMs would be members. The legislation also allows for the creation of other municipal conglomerations, if so desired. It permits local land-use decisions to be subject to appeal to the Manitoba Municipal Board, which is a quasi-judicial tribunal that hears planning and property assessment appeals.
The 2021 Act directed the WMR to establish a bylaw (Plan20-50) to guide land-use planning for all 18 municipalities. The WMR gave the bylaw first reading on June 13.
Nicol said there’s a three-year window allowing for a statutory review of the 2021 Act, and that’s happening right now. But rather than “pausing … the WMR … and actually giving consideration to whether [it’s] a good idea or not” for all involved, they’re signalling that they’re moving forward with Plan20-50 despite this review.
“This is one of the problems we have with the process they’ve adopted. They’re still pushing hard to get Plan20-50 approved,” he said.
It will be approved if second and third readings pass.
It’s unclear whether there’ll be any changes made to Plan20-50 with respect to feedback provided at the public meetings – both of which the WMR is required to hold under the Act, said Nicol.
“Technically, they have the ability to do that and I would hope that if they get any useful feedback, they can use it to improve the plan. I’ll assume they’re giving that a good review and consideration,” he said.
Plan20-50’s purpose is to create a sustainable and economically viable region, according to a statement by WMR chair Michael Moore (a provincial government appointee) that’s provided in the preface of the document. The 30-year plan represents a collective effort to embrace “regionalism” that was developed through an inclusive process and “extensive collaboration” among the 18 municipal members. And it “made room for all stakeholders to provide input.” Moore believes Plan20-50 will contribute to the betterment of the region.
WMR members are the City of Winnipeg, City of Selkirk, Town of Niverville, Town of Stonewall, Village of Dunnottar, RM of Cartier, RM of East St. Paul, RM of Headingley, RM of Macdonald, RM of Ritchot, RM of Rockwood, RM of Rosser, RM of Springfield, RM of St. Andrews, RM of St. Clements, RM of St. François Xavier, RM of Tache, and RM of West St. Paul. The WMR board has mayors, reeves and councillors from those jurisdictions, as well as provincial appointees.
The plan addresses broad areas such as climate resilience, the protection of water, land and natural resources, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and technological advancement. Drilling down, it has policies for areas such as housing, community growth, water and wastewater, transportation, job creation and agriculture.
There are a number of regional planning “schedules” which have yet to be created to guide future development and which will align with Plan20-50. These schedules include a Regional Housing Strategy, a Regional Transportation Master Plan, a Regional Natural Assets Network Plan, a Regional Agricultural Master Plan and a Regional Climate Action Plan.
Plan20-50 states that the Regional Climate Action Plan, for example, will “align efforts regionally to reduce greenhouse gas emission, enhance energy efficiency, and support adaptation.” These appear to be laudable goals intended to benefit people and the environment, but there are no details on how they’ll be achieved.
Nicol said he thinks there are a number of reasons Plan20-50 has given rise to some public confusion and ire – this in a matter of days since WMR’s first public meeting on July 25.
The reasons range from a relative lack of communication from the WMR itself about what it does, its “motherhood and apple pie” statements that make everything sound so good when it does communicate, a lack of mainstream media coverage that could have provided the public with an overview of what the WMR is and the power this corporation has to override municipal authority and taxation, and the fact that there are so many unknowns regarding what land-use planning and other policies will look like as they have yet to be created. Without details of how Plan20-50 plan is going to affect municipalities and their ratepayers, it’s difficult for people to make informed judgments.
What is known is the power that the WMR possesses under the legislation, said Nicol.
“Let me start by talking about the structure of the [WMR] because that will provide you with some sense of how impactful Plan20-50 could be. Structure is important because it gives this plan teeth. The Winnipeg Metro Region is basically an overarching second-tier level of government. In legislation they have the power of [land] expropriation and they have the power of indirect taxation,” said Nicol. “This group can take land from anybody, including municipalities, for any reason they deem necessary. And they can sell it to somebody else. That’s a Crown power; that’s why it’s called a second-tier level of government. They also have the power of indirect taxation; they can levy a charge against a local municipality [such as Selkirk] and send us an invoice. We’d have no ability to argue or dispute that charge and we in turn would have to put that onto the backs of our taxpayers.”
And down the line if the WMR says it needs more money, the provincial minister can raise the minimum that can be charged to municipalities, and by extension to its ratepayers, said Nicol. Expropriation and indirect taxation are not addressed in the Plan20-50 document but in the legislation itself.
“That’s the problem with Plan20-50: it assumes you know all this [background legislation and regulations],” he said.
Another issue with structure is the power the City of Winnipeg has to essentially “veto” any WMR decision by virtue of its population size, he said. For anything to pass, Winnipeg would have to vote in favour of it.
With regard to Plan20-50 itself, Nicol said there are “lots of good ideas” in it. But at the same time, it wades into areas that go “above and beyond” land-use planning such as design and standards, recreational services delivery, emergency service delivery, waste management, asset management, greenhouse gas tracking, monitoring and target-setting, as well into areas that have traditionally been the responsibility of municipalities.
“Plan20-50 sets out a big area of public policy that the Winnipeg Metro Region will be responsible for, but it doesn’t give any details. This will be done piecemeal after the fact [after it’s adopted]. And municipalities will be governed by those things,” said Nicol. “That’s one of the reasons Selkirk is quite concerned. These are broad and expansive powers the WMR is taking out of the hands of municipal governments.”
The plan indicates that specific areas such as downtown Winnipeg and CentrePort in the RM of Rosser are ideal targets for development. And that could come at the expense of other municipal governments that are trying to attract economic development to their areas.
“We’re investing a lot in economic development in Selkirk, and we’d be working against the WMR because they’ll be looking to direct more and more development to targeted areas,” said Nicol.
It would be in keeping with democratic practice to allow municipalities to bring Plan20-50 to their ratepayers, review its goals and open up debate, he added.
“Why isn’t there an opportunity to be accountable to the people? Each of these councils could hold a public forum and a debate and, ultimately, we could have a resolution from each council to buy into Plan20-50. That would seem like a more democratic process,” said Nicol. “But this is not collaborative; it’s coercion. Some municipalities were forced into this. Some might have voluntarily joined and there are some municipalities that are generally supportive of it – and that’s fine, they have a right to that. But places like Selkirk do not want to be part of this and we’re seeing real concerns with how this [plan] is going to be implemented.”
Jennifer Friesen, who lives on an acreage in a municipality south of Winnipeg that she prefers not to identify, said she has concerns about the impact of Plan20-50 on agriculture. The plan contains no details about what conditions could be placed on farmers.
“Our community’s primary industry is agriculture, as are many of the communities that will be impacted by Plan20-50. Under Section 4.1.5, the plan states there will be a ‘Regional Agricultural Master Plan.’ However, no details for this plan are outlined,” said Friesen whose municipality is not part of the WMR. “Farmers want to know what conditions will be imposed on them in order to meet the WMRs goals of supporting the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One of the most well-known SDGs is to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050. No diesel? No gas? No propane? What does that mean for transportation and agriculture?”
Friesen said municipalities could find themselves in court should they fail to comply with WMR policies. Under Section 6.2 of the plan, it states that municipalities should ensure proposed bylaws are not inconsistent with the regional plan.
“This sounds amicable enough, until you read further (page 101, 6.2.7 Enforcement) and discover that if municipalities refuse to comply with the proposed bylaws, the WMR will take them to court. It’s clear that full compliance will not only be expected, but enforced,” said Friesen. “In more basic language, the WMR will hold more power to dictate bylaws in your community than your municipal councils. How can a non-elected, statutory corporation be granted more power than your elected municipal council or mayor?”
Friesen said there’s been a lack of media coverage about Plan20-50, yet the plan will impact the daily lives of nearly 900,000 Manitobans. Residents should also be given the right to vote on whether to accept or reject the plan.
“Each community must have the right to have open discussions with the WMR board wherein the public can ask critical questions and the WMR board is obliged to answer. After full transparency and public involvement have been ensured, it’s essential that each community has the right to vote on their acceptance or rejection of Plan20-50,” she said. “Until then, we cannot consent to this unelected body – the WMR – holding such vast power to dictate the conditions under which we live and work.”
Arborg and Municipality of Bifrost-Riverton business owner Morley Nordal said he has concerns about how Plan20-50 could negatively affect the agricultural industry, how its housing density policies could see people “living on top of each other in tenement housing” and how it intends to establish an electrical grid to support climate-friendly initiatives such as electric vehicles.
The plan states that food security reinforces the need to “protect and preserve” the region’s agricultural lands in the “outer metro area.” But if development affects existing and future agricultural activities and “avoidance is not possible,” there should be a “minimization or mitigation” of adverse impacts. In other words, agricultural land could be sacrificed.
With reference to development prevailing over agricultural activities, Nordal said there’s a potential for disruptions to the food chain. And there could be late seeding starts and limits on the number of animal units.
“It could affect our ability to produce enough food to feed ourselves,” said Nordal, who lives and works in different municipalities that are not part of the WMR.
He questions how agricultural land taken out of commission to serve development needs can be considered sustainable, which is emphasized throughout the plan.
“To me, sustainability is being a steward of the land. A farmer takes a quarter section of land and keeps it weed-free and produces a crop. And he does the same thing the following year. That’s sustainable. I don’t know what the WMR means by sustainability. Their definition of sustainability is far different from mine,” he said. “I want my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities as I had growing up. This plan doesn’t just affect me; it’s about what we’re leaving for our future generations.”
The Express reached out to other WMR member municipalities in the Interlake for comment. Stonewall mayor Sandra Smith wasn’t able to offer comment on the corporation or Plan20-50.
“Officially, I can’t comment because we’re in the middle of the public hearing process,” she said.
The paper left a message for Village of Dunnottar mayor Rick Gamble regarding Plan20-50 and also contacted the Village office but did not hear back from Gamble.
