Almost one week after hundreds filled the Heritage Centre in opposition to Plan20-50, the Town of Niverville has made public their intent to oppose it as well.
On August 14, a statement was issued from the town office indicating council’s concerns over their unwilling induction into the Winnipeg Metro Region (WMR) as well as Plan20-50, the regional planning bylaw proposed for adoption by the WMR.
“The Town of Niverville council does not support Plan20-50 without significant amendments to protect the interests of Niverville,” the statement reads.
The WMR’s regional planning bylaw, known as Plan20-50, is a 127-page document that’s been years in the making. The creation of a 30-year capital plan was mandated by the province as a tool for coordinating land use, services, infrastructure, and environmental initiatives for Winnipeg and the 17 rural communities of the WMR which surround the city’s borders.
On August 8, the WMR was all set to go with proceedings for a final public hearing on Plan20-50 after which it could be submitted to the province and enter a final WMR vote.
The public hearing was postponed due to lack of venue capacity when an unexpected throng of people converged on the event. The new public hearing date has yet to be announced.
According to Niverville’s council, there are at least four fatal flaws to Plan20-50 that will need to be addressed before they can endorse it. They lay out clear recommendations on the first steps to addressing them.
“Council is advocating that the province of Manitoba convene a meeting of all councils of the Winnipeg Metro Region and present a plan on next steps to address the local level challenges and how they will be implemented in an improved Plan20-50,” the statement reads. “Or have the legislation repealed.”
The first of council’s concerns relates to Niverville’s forced membership in the WMR, which was mandated by the provincial government in the spring of 2023.
There needs to be an exit clause, they say, by which towns and municipalities can opt out of the WMR.
“Town council has advocated on multiple occasions that this forced inclusion by the province into a region which we have not belonged is an error and needs to be corrected,” reads the statement. “The town continues to advocate for correction of this, or that Bill 37 be amended to provide a mechanism for a community to withdraw with sufficient notice from the Winnipeg Metro Region.”
Echoing a concern on many residents’ minds, town council agrees that, as it stands, Plan20-50 and Bill 37, the Municipal Planning Act which directs Plan20-50, remove autonomy and decision-making power from municipal governments.
“Plan20-50 needs to be revised and further developed to ensure that final land use planning decisions remain in the hands of locally elected officials at the community level.”
Niverville’s council see worrisome financial implications to their WMR involvement as well.
“Plan 20-50 does not define what financial contribution will be required if the plan is approved,” the statement continues. “[It] proposes dozens of studies and reports to be completed over the next decades, some of which may benefit Niverville and others which may be irrelevant. All of these reports and studies come at a cost—and that cost would need to be recouped through local level municipal taxation.”
The provision of some cost guarantees from the province as well as a sober second look at the need for the required reports and studies will be needed if Niverville is to endorse the plan.
Finally, council asks that an amended Plan20-50 acknowledge Niverville as a transition zone in the WMR due to its unique position on the very outskirts of the region.
“The current plan will create further urban sprawl away from Winnipeg due to the discrepancy in costs to build outside the WMR, as opposed to inside the WMR.”
Selkirk Wants Out
Since the introduction of Bill 37 in 2021, when the Progressive Conservatives were in power, Selkirk’s council has been vocal about their opposition to their forced inclusion in the WMR.
The Citizen reached out to Selkirk’s CAO, Duane Nicol, for background.
“At least for the city of Selkirk, and I think it’s true for all municipalities, there was no prior consultation and there certainly was no consent sought,” Nicol says. “We were forced to join.”
Immediately, he says, Selkirk asked the province for their removal from the WMR. That request was declined.
At the same time, the province delegated four additional members of their choosing to the WMR board, including a chair, a vice chair, and two members at large. Winnipeg mayor Scott Gillingham was designated director.
When Bill 37 and the new WMR were first introduced, Nicol says there was a lot of kickback.
According to an article written for the Manitoba Cooperator at the time, concerns and opposition were raised by the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, municipal leaders, and opposition politicians prior to the vote on Bill 37.1
For some of them, one of the more concerning features of the bill was the power it gave the Manitoba Municipal Board, a provincially appointed tribunal, to override land use decisions made by individual councils in the WMR.
“Applicants that were declined could appeal a council’s decision to the Municipal Board and we’ve seen the results of that,” says Nicol. “There was a number of cases where the Board overturned decisions of the locally elected municipal council.”
In terms of land use, he adds, overturning council rulings isn’t the only worrisome change.
“When you look at the legislation, the WMR has been provided broad and sweeping powers [beyond that of] a municipal government,” Nicol says. “They have the power of expropriation, which is only delegated by the Crown, and they exercise that authority without the limitations that municipalities have. Councils have to demonstrate that any land that we’re annexing is for municipal purposes. [The WMR] can expropriate land and sell it off the next day.”
As well, Nicol adds, they have the power to apply levies to their member municipalities which then get passed on to the taxpayer. It’s a form of indirect taxation and the legislation provides zero limitations to this authority, he says.
According to Nicol, the city of Winnipeg also holds vetoing power over any decision made by the WMR which, in the end, makes Winnipeg the final authority over certain matters.
In the eyes of Selkirk’s council, all of these rulings directly impact a municipal government’s authority and a community’s autonomy to make decisions based on what is uniquely right for them. This puts WMR municipalities at a disadvantage to others in Manitoba that aren’t required to conform to WMR rulings.
As for Plan20-50, Selkirk’s council shares many of the very same concerns as Niverville’s council.
With a new provincial government coming to power last fall, Nicol says that his council once again appealed for removal from the WMR.
“The response from Minister Ian Bushie is that there is a legislative review of Bill 37 that’s going on right now,” Nicol says. “So we’re hopeful that our forced inclusion into the [WMR] will be reconsidered. We would have expected that Plan20-50 would have paused in its approval process until after the Bill 37 review was done. Plan20-50 only means something because Bill 37 was enacted.”
The Citizen reached out to Ian Bushie, Minister of Municipal Affairs, for an interview in regard to Selkirk’s concerns.
The following statement was provided by his office.
“The City of Selkirk are an excellent regional partner and have shown strong leadership when it comes to creating a positive environment for economic development. We are looking forward to meeting with the council and CAO to discuss ways in which we might be able to address their concerns.”
Another Vocal Opponent in Headingley
In the same vein as Niverville and Selkirk, the RM of Headingley has recently made public their opposition to Plan20-50.
“Headingley has consistently expressed concerns throughout the planning process related to the various drafts of the regional plan and its supporting studies,” their statement says.
Should Plan20-50 be implemented as proposed, they worry about the loss of their semi-rural character and the autonomy their municipality now enjoys.
As well, they wonder about population density targets as set out for them in the plan.
“The plan’s push for higher density… contradicts our long-term vision and the preferences of our residents, including future growth rates,” the statement reads.
Legal challenges, they say, are another concern.
“Municipalities will have three years to align their local plans with the regional plan. During this period, how will we manage developments that may conflict with the regional plan? What are the implications for legal disputes, developer costs, and project delays?”
