Regional planning without regional government?

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/09/2024 (560 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Back in 2001, when premier Gary Doer asked me to lead a seven-member advisory committee on planning for the Capital Region (consisting then of Winnipeg and 16 adjacent municipalities) he warned: “Unless you are into rejection, do not recommend another layer of government and a bureaucracy with authority to compel municipalities to participate in land-use planning on a regional basis.”

Unilateral, top-down imposition of a regional plan, he suggested, would be contentious and politically risky.

Tensions and disagreements between and among the 18 municipalities in the Capital Region, and with the provincial government, are inevitable and no governing arrangements for the region will eliminate them entirely. In principle, local governments should have primary responsibility for development plans within their territory.

However, there are also crucial issues which span municipal boundaries, such as regional growth, environmental sustainability and transportation, which demand region-wide planning.

In 2003, our committee recommended an incremental approach to the development of regional structures, processes and a shared culture. The goal was to achieve integrated regional planning without a regional governing body with coercive powers. Instead, co-ordination and collaboration among local governments would be based on mutual understanding, the recognition of shared goals and negotiation over particular planning and service-delivery activities.

The committee also recognized that the government of Manitoba is the only government with the legal and political authority to identify, promote and to protect the interests of the region as a whole. Given the economic and social importance of the region, there is no way that the provincial government should remain indifferent and disengaged from what takes place within its boundaries.

Provincial leadership should normally be based on a general policy framework and a consultative partnership with regional municipalities, not on top-down detailed prescriptions.

In 2005, the Doer government created by statute the Capital Region Partnership (CRP), which operated on a voluntary basis. The CRP made only limited progress in developing regional thinking and actions.

Fast forward to 2019, when yet another report on regional planning — this time prepared by a single consultant — was released. The resulting Bill 37, introduced by the Pallister government in 2021, involved strong assertion of provincial authority in several ways.

It set services standards in the form of time limits for various development approvals at the municipal level. It provided for the appeal of municipal council decisions and missed deadlines to the Municipal Board, whose members are appointed by the provincial government.

On Jan. 1, 2023, under the provisions of Bill 37, the Capital Planning Region, a statutory corporation with a board of directors, came into existence. The CPR opted to continue to operate under the pre-existing Winnipeg Metropolitan Region (WMR) name.

Its board consists of 18 directors, one from each of the 18 municipalities (by statute, membership is mandatory) that comprise the CPR, plus a chair, vice chair and two members at large appointed by the provincial government. Each municipality has one vote, and decisions are made by a double majority, meaning the majority must represent half of the regional population.

As part of the required development of a regional plan, the WMR spent considerable time and money gathering data, consulting stakeholders, hiring experts and preparing a draft 2050 plan, which was amended before being put to a first-reading vote at the June 2024 meeting of the board.

The plan passed, but directors from four municipalities (Headingley, Selkirk, Tache and West St.Paul) voted against it.

Subsequently, the council for the town of Niverville voted unanimously against the plan, citing four reasons: the absence of an opt-out clause, the loss of municipal autonomy, the ongoing costs of studies by the WMR and the potential for additional ex-urban sprawl in the neighbouring RM of Hanover.

A scheduled public hearing on the plan in the town had to be postponed because the venue could not accommodate the turnout.

On Aug. 20, Premier Wab Kinew announced his NDP government would introduce legislation — he called it a “freedom bill” — allowing municipalities to withdraw from the WMR and, by extension, be exempt from having their own development plans conform to the proposed Plan 2050.

He distinguished his respect for municipal autonomy from the centralizing approach of the former Pallister government.

This could spell the end to Plan 2050. Should the plan proceed, presumably the opted-out municipalities would obtain the benefits from it without incurring the costs.

On my reading of the plan, worries about the loss of local control are exaggerated. First, the plan’s provisions in six broad policy areas are general and aspirational in nature, not all that restrictive on municipal freedom. Second, like all municipal development plans, any regional plan would require approval from the provincial government, so it could block actions deemed to be unduly intrusive or unfair.

Other city-centred regions in Canada and elsewhere are ahead of us in terms of gaining the multiple benefits of comprehensive regional planning.

In admittedly general terms, here is what I think should happen next in the Winnipeg region:

To balance its respect for municipal “freedom,” the Kinew government should promote a stronger CPR by issuing periodic provincial policy statements on regional development issues. It should also promote, including with financial support, functional collaboration such as service sharing among municipalities, leading hopefully, over time, to more shared commitment to regional goals.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.