LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – MLA Carla Compton (Tuxedo)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows)

ATTENDANCE – 6 — QUORUM – 4

Members of the committee present:

Hon. Min. Moroz, Hon. Min. Sala

Mr. Brar, MLA Compton, Mr. King, Mrs. Stone

Substitutions:

Hon. Min. Simard for Hon. Min. Sala at 7:41 p.m.

APPEARING:

Hon. Glen Simard, MLA for Brandon East

PUBLIC PRESENTERS:

Bill 4 – The Planning Amend­ment Act

Duane Nicol, City of Selkirk

Bill 3 – The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act

Dan Diachun, private citizen

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Bill 3 – The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act

Kathy Valentino, Association of Manitoba Munici­palities

Lanny McInnes, Urban Dev­elop­ment In­sti­tute of Manitoba

Luanne Diachun, private citizen

Bill 4 – The Planning Amend­ment Act

Kathy Valentino, Association of Manitoba Munici­palities

Lanny McInnes, Urban Dev­elop­ment In­sti­tute of Manitoba

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Bill 3 – The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act

Bill 4 – The Planning Amend­ment Act

Bill 14 – The Insurance Amend­ment Act

Bill 15 – The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act

Bill 27 – The Income Tax Amend­ment Act

Bill 28 – The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment Act

Bill 37 – The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts.

* * *

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Katerina Tefft): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legis­lative Affairs please come to order.

      Before the com­mit­tee can proceed with the busi­ness before it, it must elect a Chairperson.

      Are there any nominations?

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): I'd like to nominate MLA Compton for Chair and MLA Brar for Vice-Chair.

Clerk Assistant: So first, we'll do the Chairperson election. MLA Compton has been nominated.

      Are there any other nominations?

      Hearing no other nominations, MLA Compton, will you please take the Chair.

The Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson.

      Are there any nominations?

MLA Sala: Propose MLA Brar for Vice-Chair

The Chairperson: MLA Brar has been nominated.

      Are there any other nominations?

      Hearing no other nominations, MLA Brar is elected Vice-Chairperson.

      So this meeting has been called to order to con­sider the following bills: Bill 3, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act; Bill 4, The Planning Amend­ment Act; Bill 14, The Insurance Amend­ment Act; Bill 15, The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act; Bill 27, The Income Tax Amend­ment Act; Bill 28, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment Act; Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amendments to Various Other Acts.

      And I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. A standing com­mit­tee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public pre­sen­ta­tions or to consider clause by clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of the com­mit­tee.

      Written submissions: Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to com­mit­tee members: Kathy Valentino, Association of Manitoba Munici­palities, on Bill 3; Larry [phonetic] McInnes, Urban Dev­elop­ment In­sti­tute of Manitoba, on Bill 3; Luanne Diachun, private citizen, on Bill 3; Kathy Valentino, Association of Manitoba Munici­palities, on Bill 4; Larry [phonetic] McInnes, Urban Dev­elop­ment In­sti­tute of Manitoba, on Bill 4.

      Does the com­mit­tee agree to have these docu­ments appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed]

      Public pre­sen­ta­tion guide­lines: Prior to proceeding with public pre­sen­ta­tions, I would like to advise mem­bers of the public regarding the process for speaking in a com­mit­tee. In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for the pre­sen­ta­tions, with another five minutes allowed for questions from com­mit­tee members. Questions shall not exceed 45 seconds in length, with no time limit for the answers.

      Questions may be addressed to presenters in the following rotation: first, the minister sponsoring the  bill or another member of their caucus; second, a member of the official op­posi­tion; and third, an inde­pen­dent member.

      If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

      The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time some­one wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off.

* (18:10)

      On order of pre­sen­ta­tions: On the topic of deter­mining the order of public pre­sen­ta­tions, I will also note that we have an out-of-town presenter in attendance, marked with an asterisk on the list. With these con­sid­era­tions in mind, then, in what order does the com­mit­tee wish to hear the pre­sen­ta­tions?

MLA Sala: If I could just–[interjection]

The Chairperson: Oh. Do I–[interjection] I'm good? Okay.

An Honourable Member: Am I good?

The Chairperson: Is–[interjection] Minister Sala.

MLA Sala: I was just going to recom­mend that we allow any out-of-town presenters who are here to go up first.

The Chairperson: So the recom­men­dation is that we allow the out-of-town presenters to go first.

      And we're all in agreeance? [Agreed]

      Okay. Thank you for your patience, and we will now proceed with the public pre­sen­ta­tion.

Bill 4–The Planning Amendment Act

The Chairperson: So our out-of-town presenter is Mr. Duane Nicol from the City of Selkirk. Mr. Duane Nicol, please proceed.

Duane Nicol (City of Selkirk): Good evening. My name is Duane Nicol and I'm the chief admin­is­tra­tive officer for the City of Selkirk. I'm here as the appointed spokesperson for the munici­pal cor­por­ation, and I'm repre­sen­ting the council's expressed interest on Bill 4.

      Through­out our pre­sen­ta­tion tonight, I will refer to the Capital Planning Region, which is the legal title of the organi­zation that most know as the Winnipeg Metro Region.

      To begin, the council of the City of Selkirk wishes to express its deep ap­pre­cia­tion to Premier Kinew and the Manitoba gov­ern­ment for the intro­duction of Bill 4, the appropriately nicknamed freedom bill, and the spirit of respect and co-operation that it represents.

      You'll note I've handed out–or asked to hand out a copy of the various acts that I'll be–or clauses of The Planning Act that I'll be referring to.

      As com­mit­tee members may know, Selkirk was not consulted on its inclusion into the Capital Planning Region. In fact, there was absolutely no econo­­mic or social data used to deter­mine the bound­aries of the region. They were created on a political whim and without any–without the explicit consent of any of the munici­palities.

      Selkirk has previously made repeated requests to be removed from the Capital Planning Region to various ministers who occupied the munici­pal affairs and munici­pal relations min­is­tries, including presenting during the com­mit­tee stage of bill 37.

      Selkirk council has previously passed a reso­lu­tion requesting to be removed from the Capital Planning Region and is now looking forward to exercising its right under Bill 4 to formally request removal from the region.

      The City of Selkirk is in full support of Bill 4. We support the gov­ern­ment's in­ten­tion to give muni­ci­pal gov­ern­ments the ability to opt out of the region. To us, Bill 4 is a clear and practical signal that this gov­ern­ment sees munici­palities as a mature order of gov­ern­ment.

      It is in this spirit the City of Selkirk would like to propose an amend­ment to Bill 4, to strengthen this demon­stra­tion of respect and to more fully fulfill the spirit in which the freedom bill was announced. Specific­ally, we'd propose that a clause be added to Bill 4 to remove clauses 8(2) and 8(3) from the Manitoba Planning Act.

      Clause 8(2) sets out the list of munici­palities to be included within the boundaries of the Capital Planning Region; and clause 8(3) then says that, notwithstanding the previous clause, the minister may change that list by simple regula­tion.

      We believe that Bill 4 should be amended to remove these clauses from The Planning Act, which were intro­duced by the previous gov­ern­ment's bill 37, because they are inconsistent with the clauses of the–of other clauses in The Planning Act, and they work to counter the purpose and spirit of Bill 4.

      First of all, clause 8(2) is not necessary, because clause 9(1) of The Planning Act already provides the tool for the minister to esta­blish planning regions via regula­tion, and it is in with–in those regula­tions that the included munici­palities could be identified.

      The Capital Planning Region already has a regula­­tion, so the list of included munici­palities could easily be added to that existing regula­tion.

      The listing of included munici­palities for the Capital Planning Region is an oddity. It stands out as being out of step with the practices set out by the rest of the legis­lation, which provides for the creation of planning regions, planning districts and planning com­­mis­sions, but does not spe­cific­ally create any other entities like it does for the Capital Planning Region.

      We would suggest that it is not usual nor does it seem to be good practice to esta­blish a system that permits a regula­tion to overrule or overwrite the legis­lation to which it is subordinate. Typically, regula­tions are used to expand upon, refine the details of or elaborate on legis­lation, not to negate it.

      As it currently stands, and how it would stand if Bill 4 is not amended, The Planning Act would create two–or it creates two tiers of planning regions: the Capital Planning Region and every other region that may be created in the future. There does not seem to be a benefit or value to this overly complicated structure, so one naturally wonders why bill 37 was structured in this way in the first place.

      We believe this un­neces­sary structure reflects the original coercive spirit of bill 37, which was to rail­road munici­palities into the region regardless of the will of their elected councils and without the require­ment for con­sul­ta­tion, as prescribed for the creation of other regions in clause 9(2)(b).

      Where the 18 munici­palities–while the 18 munici­palities were forced into the Capital Planning Region, bill 37 treats all other munici­palities with more respect by requiring the minister to consult prior to the creation of a new region.

      Furthermore, under this structure, the Capital Planning Region was not subject to the con­di­tions required of future regions prior to formation. In short, clause 8(2) was created to avoid scrutiny.

      Clauses 8(2) and 8(3) are artifacts of the previous approach to munici­pal gov­ern­ment and is contrary to the spirit of Bill 4, which is about recog­nizing the autonomy and agency of local gov­ern­ments and creating true op­por­tun­ities for col­lab­o­ration rather than a system of coercive control.

      The City of Selkirk believes that by keeping our name as an included munici­pality in the legis­lation, we believe that this seems to be inconsistent with the Premier's (Mr. Kinew) and the minister's–Minister Simard's acknowledgment of our desire to leave and the permission that Bill 4 represents.

      It is a spectre. The proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over this–over Selkirk's head, threatening that one day a future gov­ern­ment will revert to the legis­lation, overriding the City's expressed will. Leaving Selkirk's name in the legis­lation seems to imply, however unintentionally, that one day Selkirk will eventually be annexed into the Capital Planning Region, which reduces the impact of Bill 4.

      We believe that leaving it in does not reflect the clear and unequivocal message from Premier Kinew, which is, and I quote: We're going to bring freedom back to the equation. We think it's an im­por­tant step to return that power to locally elected demo­cratic officials instead of trying to centralize every­thing like the previous gov­ern­ment.

      Leaving the list of munici­palities in The Planning Act makes Bill 4 seem less like the freedom bill and potentially more like the temporary reprieve bill.

      In closing, we hope that this recom­men­dation is taken in the sup­port­ive and col­lab­o­rative spirit in which it is intended. We are in full support of Bill 4 and we see our recom­men­dation–recom­mended change to the bill as an im­prove­ment that exemplifies and reinforces the gov­ern­ment's message that mem­ber­­ship in the Capital Planning Region is truly voluntary and it is up to the demo­cratic­ally elected councils to decide on partici­pation for them­selves.

      Thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to share our position on Bill 4. I look forward to any questions that you may have.

The Chairperson: So thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      Do members of the com­mit­tee have questions for the presenter? You have first choice, Minister, if you have any questions.

An Honourable Member: No, I–

The Chairperson: Sorry. Sorry. Minister Sala or Minister Simard? [interjection] Minister Simard.

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): I want to thank you for coming here today, Duane. I know that we've discussed at length your sug­ges­tions to the bill. I thank you for coming and putting your feelings and position on the record.

* (18:20)

      Would you recog­nize that we are unable to–well, if we were to leave as is and the City of Selkirk were to make its opt-out, that we could change this in regula­tion, or rather, perhaps the City of Selkirk, between now and the opting-out phase of Bill 4, may choose to change their position. [interjection]

The Chairperson: Excuse me sir, sorry. I have to acknowledge you first.

D. Nicol: Thank you. Sorry about that.

      Sorry, Minister, just for clarity, is the question do we recog­nize that under Bill 4, as it exists now, the City would be able to make the formal request to be excluded from the Planning Region through regula­tion?

An Honourable Member: Correct.

D. Nicol: We do understand that and we do ap­pre­ciate that. Again, we are in full support of Bill 4, and our proposal is simply to reinforce the–what clearly is the spirit of this bill, which is to make it truly voluntary. We–the only amend­ment that we're proposing is that, by removing the list out of the legis­lation, we don't have a piece of regula­tion that negates a portion of the legisla­tion.

      We have this–we're changing the act now, and it seems to me–seems to the city–that it would make more sense to remove all the names of the listed munici­palities and just include those in the regula­tion. So then it's by regula­tion that you're including or not including munici­palities.

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Question to Mr. Nicol. Thanks for that clari­fi­ca­tion on the minister's question there.

      So my question is that you have–if the names for the–our munici­palities are removed, that's what you'd like to see for fear of future chance of it being put back in there, where you're forced that–back into capital region. Is that what I'm hearing from you, Duane?

D. Nicol: I learn.

      Mr. King, absolutely. Our concern is that we've been very clear that we don't want to be part of the Capital Planning Region. Other munici­palities do want to be part, and we respect their right to be part–to partici­pate. We just think it's more con­sistent with the legis­lation everywhere else for planning com­mis­sions, planning division–districts, planning–other planning regions–there are no names in the legis­lation.

      So this is a very unique structure, and what we're suggesting is it probably seems more ap­pro­priate to be con­sistent with the rest of the legis­lation: remove the names and then include that in a regula­tion so that the minister can add or subtract as the legis­lation envi­sions for other regions.

      Our concern is that, if it's left in, there seems to be this assumption that at some point in the future the City of Selkirk will want to partici­pate, and that might be true: councils change; gov­ern­ments change, but it would seem to be a more ap­pro­priate way of doing that through regula­tion as opposed to just the assump­tion, which is what the legis­lation would com­muni­cate.

The Chairperson: Now, I don't see an in­de­pen­dent member present.

      Are there any further questions?

Mr. King: I'm just curious now. So what is your thoughts on regional planning, then? I guess your thoughts, Mr. Nicol, are that Selkirk is–would do fine on their own, doing their own regional planning and still work with neighbouring munici­palities, or do you feel that the City of Selkirk is okay on their own, doing their own planning Is that what I'm hearing?

D. Nicol: Maybe I don't learn as well as I think I do.

      The–for clarity, we have no concern with the con­cept of regional planning. It was how this was done originally that we have some concern with. We also have concern–so, as I said earlier, there was no social or economic research that was done. The best data that we have is under the–census Canada has the metropolitan–

The Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Nicol. The five minutes have finished. I just want to check if there's leave for him to complete his answer. [Agreed]

      Okay. So you can finish your answer, Mr. Nicol.

D. Nicol: Thank you.

      So we are not in the census metropolitan area. City of Selkirk is not within the city of Winnipeg census metropolitan area. The province recognized us as a region unto ourselves because of all the Interlake regional planning offices that are located in Selkirk. We have strong connections with St. Andrews and St. Clements, we have good regional relationships there and we work with those munici­palities.

      Our–more Winnipeggers come to–drive to Selkirk to work than the other way around; we're not a bedroom com­mu­nity. In fact, we're the–out of the 18 munici­palities included, Selkirk is the only one other than Winnipeg that doesn't have the majority of their popu­la­tion leaving their munici­pality for work. We import 30 per cent of our popu­la­tion every day for work. We're our own region, our own commuter shed.

      So we believe that a more articulate look at this would find that Selkirk doesn't belong in that region, but maybe there is another op­por­tun­ity for a region outside of that.

      So the other im­por­tant point that I want to em­pha­size, which wasn't in this, is that this change would not make–is not proposing to make any change for the Capital Planning Region at all. It can continue to function without any change what­so­ever other than our request to leave. It just simply is taking the list of names out of the legis­lation and just putting into the regula­tion, which all future planning regions will have; it'll be done by regula­tion, not legis­lation.

      Since we're opening up the legis­lation today, we thought it would be easier and better to clean it up now rather than to leave it as a second or, you know, creating a tiered system for planning regions.

The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Nicol.

Bill 3–The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment and Planning Amendment Act

The Chairperson: So now, we will move back to Bill 3. And I will now call on David Grant to please proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      And I don't think I'm seeing him right now, so we'll just put him to the bottom of the list and we will come back. So we'll move back to Bill 4.

      So I will now call on Mr. Dan Diachun, who joins us from online.

      Please proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion and please correct me if I've pronounced your name–how–on how to pronounce your name.

      Thank you.

      Could you please turn on your video? Mr. Diachun?

      I believe we need to see you for you to do your pre­sen­ta­tion, please.

      Mr. Diachun, can you turn on your mic as well, please? We still can't hear you.

Floor Comment: Yes, okay. Sorry.

The Chairperson: Okay. And I just have to re-recog­nize you.

      Mr. Dan Diachun, go ahead. Please–pardon me. Please proceed with your pre­sen­ta­tion.

Dan Diachun (Private Citizen): Just–sorry. I have an iPad going because I thought there was some problem. Sorry. Okay. I'm just going to continue. Sorry.

      Actually, I'm here–sorry. Lots of sorrys–Canadian.

      Actually, I'm talking about Bill 3. It somehow got changed over to Bill 4. I'm talking about the City charter–change to the charter, and I'd like to speak to that.

      Currently, the require­ment now is 25 voters or 50 per cent of the landowners within 100 metres of real property being affected. Now the City/gov­ern­ment–I'm not sure who initiated this change–wants to change it to 300 eligible persons. Now, I have a ques­tion: What is the definition of eligible? I could not find that. Who determines this? And how did you–how did someone come up with 300–the 300 number?

* (18:30)

      The entire rezoning process from start to the final hearing at a munici­pal board is slanted in favour of the City of Winnipeg and the developer. The property owner–the citizen–has very little input but they are the ones that ultimately live in that neighbourhood, not the planners, not the developers, the council members or other elected officials.

      I can only relate this to a case that was just recently heard that I was involved with, with a subdivi­sion on the corner of Dugald and Plessis. The–it went to the Munici­pal Board just last month on March 25, where I made a presentation in regard to that rezoning and variance. In our case, there was only 117 resi­den­tial properties that are directly adjacent to the subject property, seeking–where a developer was seeking rezoning and variances on portions of the land.

      In the new formula, how does one get the 300 eligible persons to sign a petition when only 117 potential residents? The EK-Transcona Com­mu­nity Com­mit­tee ignored the recom­men­dations of the city planner, who is a pro­fes­sional planner, as it relates–and I'm going to just mention block 1 and 5 of this rezoning.

      The councillor ignored what the planner was saying. He went with the developer. This is, to me, it was rammed through. That's my personal opinion.

      Currently, homeowners are given a whole 10 minutes to put their position forward on rezoning matters. Just recently in the Winnipeg Free Press, the City of Winnipeg now wants to cut that down to a whole big five minutes.

      And this appears to be another step in stifling homeowners from their 'dematic'–demo­cratic rights to object. This, coupled with this change to 300 eligible persons–again, I'm not sure what that means–will make it almost impossible for homeowners to visit–voice their concerns.

      If this is imple­mented, what recourse do home­owners have if the rezoning of adjacent parcels of land has a negative effect on their property? If the City of Winnipeg grants a rezoning variance that may impact an adjacent parcel, does that mean they have effectively expropriated the affected land? Can a property now claim under Expropriation Act? Would you like a four-to-five-storey apartment building being built behind your house? How desirable is your house now when you want to go sell it?

      I am–in a recent case, 4025 Roblin Blvd., provides a guidance what a third-party–I'm going to–the Munici­pal Board can do to provide in a rezoning plan that was rammed through through the City of Winnipeg, with little con­sid­era­tion for the neigh­bouring property.

      The proposed 10-storey apartment has now just recently been revised to now some three- and four-storey buildings that are going to be built on the parcel.

      Bottom line: a dev­elop­ment should be planned with thought and con­sid­era­tion, along with the meaning­ful input by existing residents. We are the ones that ultimately that will be living in the com­mu­nity. A home is one of the largest invest­ments–and in our area, I'm going to say it's 5 hundred to 6 hundred thousand dollars per home–makes–a person makes in their life. That's the largest invest­ment.

      They just want some certainty as to what is going to be built in close proximity to them without any surprises and potential loss in value. Bottom line, what is being proposed of 300 persons is a hurdle that prevents many if not all future rezoning and variance applications just to sail-through with no op­posi­tion.

      What happened to the percentage of affected properties calculation? It's all un­demo­cratic. That's pretty much all I have.

The Chairperson: Thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      Do members of the com­mit­tee have questions for the presenter? Minister–no.

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Mr. Dyson [phonetic]–Diachun, that's the name. Thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion and thank you for your concerns to Bill 3. Certainly have–says some­thing from my years of exper­ience on a munici­pal council that I've been looking for for a long time, but yet, at the same time, can still understand your concerns of the residents maybe not getting the op­por­tun­ity.

      I just–what I'm curious–my question to you would be: Have you gotten your answer as to what eligible persons are?

D. Diachun: No, I [inaudible] find it anywhere in any docu­ment that I could google it on, unless someone there knows. I'm not the one that put it forward. That's the scary part.

The Chairperson: I don't see an in­de­pen­dent member.

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): To answer the question about an eligible person: is someone who would be eligible if a general election were held under The Munici­pal Councils and School Boards Elections Act on the day the objection was made to vote in an election of members of council in the munici­pality or planning district that is adopting the bylaw. That would be the answer to your eligible person.

D. Diachun: I hear that, thank you. But that doesn't answer the 300 part. In our case, there's only 117 residents that are directly affected. How do we get 300 signatures? It makes–from what the current system is, it's 25 people or 50 per cent of the adjacent affected landowners.

      That's been eliminated, so it's just straight 300. But in our case, it's impossible. So you've–someone's made it impossible. If it had gone from 25 to, say, 75, maybe, but 300? You see my dilemma. Sorry, yes.

The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Diachun.

      So I do want to just remind the com­mit­tee here, this is a Q-and-A time for members of the com­mit­tee to ask Mr. Diachun questions on his pre­sen­ta­tion. So I just want to kind of get us back on track for that.

      Are there any further questions?

Mr. King: Through the Chair to Mr. Diachun, I would like to ask you what type of number do you think would work as opposed to 300 or the–I mean, this is a–this is going back a long ways; the 25 signatures have been in the act, so it was definitely due for some im­prove­ment. So just curious to know what your num­ber would be that you're thinking of, what's going on in your head.

The Chairperson: Mr. Diachun–or, Dishun [phonetic]. Please correct me if I'm not pronouncing it–

D. Diachun: No, no, it's correct. No, very–no, no, good.

      That's a tough question, but, you know, just look­ing at 117 divided by 50, which is the other part of the formula that's currently on the books, you're talking, say, 60; but you jump it to, maybe triple it to 75 or max, 100. But you're talking the city of Winnipeg. Like, I said, our case, there's only 117 homes that are directly affected. Yes, maybe we can get all of them, every household, to sign; that's 117.

      I think 300's not the answer; it's got to be less. It's got to be considerably less; otherwise you're putting a hurdle. You're putting hurdles in front of us at every step. I went from, right from the get-go, from the rezoning all the way to the Munici­pal Board that was heard on March 25, I made a pre­sen­ta­tion. I'm here to advocate for all the citizens in our neighbourhood.

The Chairperson: Are there any further questions for the presenter?

      I don't see any, so thank you very much, Mr. Diachun.

D. Diachun: Thank you.

The Chairperson: So our next presenter for Bill 4 is David Grant. He is also the next presenter on Bill 28 and Bill 37 and had previously been called for Bill 3. And so seeing as he's not here, we will be moving on. Right, no.

* (18:40)

      Okay, David Grant has been dropped from the list.

* * *

The Chairperson: And hearing no further pre­sen­ta­tions, in what order would we like the con­sid­era­tion of these bills?

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): Can I propose Minister Sala's bills be dealt with first?

The Chairperson: So MLA Brar has proposed that Minister Sala's bills are addressed first–[interjection]–oh, in this–and it would be these bills: 14, 15, 27, 28, 37, 3 and then 4. That would be the order: Minister Sala's and then Minister Simard's.

      Is that agreed? [Agreed]

Bill 14–The Insurance Amendment Act

The Chairperson: Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 14 have an opening statement?

An Honourable Member: I do.

The Chairperson: All right.

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): Okay. Thank you so much, Chair and folks. Happy to have a chance to speak briefly to Bill 14.

      So this legis­lation will modernize sections of the existing act, aligning them with other Manitoba legis­lation and those in other juris­dic­tions.

      The Insurance Agents' and Adjusters' Licensing Appeal Board is one of Manitoba's agencies, boards and com­mis­sions. Its mandate is to hear licensing appeals of decisions made by the Insurance Council of Manitoba, which has delegated powers of the super­in­ten­dent of insurance.

      The Insurance Agents' and Adjusters' Licensing Appeal Board plays a vital role in ensuring fairness and accountability within Manitoba's insurance industry, and we recognize the essential con­tri­bu­tions that board members make to the integrity and success of our prov­incial insurance sector.

      The board is a crucial mechanism for provi­ding an essential check on decisions made by the Insurance Council of Manitoba, ensuring decisions are aligned with current legis­lation and equitable. This process is critical to protect the rights of individuals seeking to work in the insurance industry while also upholding the integrity of the insurance industry.

      Under the current Insurance Act, board members are left vul­ner­able to legal action even when acting in good faith while fulfilling their respon­si­bilities. In addition, the co‑ordinator of appeals, a public servant, is similarly unprotected under the existing act.

      Manitoba's public service–servants are a vital com­ponent of our prov­incial workforce. These skilled and dedi­cated pro­fes­sionals play an essential role in delivering day‑to‑day services that directly serve the public interest, spanning a wide range of sectors and respon­si­bilities. Our gov­ern­ment respects the hard work and dedi­cation of these individuals and is com­mitted to ensuring that they are properly protected while carrying out their duties.

      Therefore the bill is being amended to add an immunity provision that will protect board members and the co‑ordinator of appeals when they are acting in good faith. This provision provides statutory immunity to members of the insurance agents' and insurers' licencing appeal board.

      By adding an immunity provision, we are em­power­ing board members and the co‑ordinator of appeals to carry out their im­por­tant work and to make decisions in the best interest of Manitobans, knowing they are protected when acting in good faith.

      This practice is already esta­blished for similar Manitoba ABC appeal com­mis­sion and hearing panel members, including through The Manitoba Public Insurance Cor­por­ation Act and the adults living with intellectual dis­abil­ities act.

      We are also modernizing this act and aligning it with the current reality, whereby most com­muni­cation is done electronically. The change will allow the co‑ordinator of appeals to notify appellants by the revolutionary advancement of electronic mail, ensuring appellants are aware of the date, time and location for hearings of the Insurance Agents' and Adjusters' Licensing Appeal Board.

      We're also making it easier for appellants to receive infor­ma­tion and cor­res­pon­dence in the way that best suits their needs, with the inclusion of, quote: if the appellant has agreed in writing. End quote.

      This new option ensures the use of email for notification is consensual and protects the appellant's preference by allowing them to choose their preferred com­muni­cation method.

      Finally, we've also intro­duced a provision to ensure limits are placed on the amount of funds that can be held inside accounts of uni­ver­sal life insurance con­tracts. This is a crucial step in ensuring that the insurance industry remains fair, trans­par­ent and focused on its core purpose: provi­ding life insurance pro­tec­tion to Manitobans. By intro­ducing limits on the funds that can be held inside uni­ver­sal life insurance contracts, we're closing a loophole that can allow hedge funds to exploit the system for tax avoidance or invest­ment manipulation.

      And on that note, I am happy to conclude my remarks.

The Chairperson: We thank the minister.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): Yes, thank you, Chair.

      And I'll make my comments brief. First and fore­most, it's im­por­tant to em­pha­size that the pro­tec­tion of the public is of the utmost importance. We know that the insurance industry is already a very highly regulated industry, at both the prov­incial and the federal levels, to ensure that insurance companies and agents and brokers are able to meet their financial obligations to customers.

      This change that's been brought forward in legis­lation seems to affect very, very few policies which are held by in­sti­tutional investors' hedge funds and very so­phis­ti­cated investors; these are not everyday life insurance policies or holders of life insurance policies. Allowing for email notification of appeal hearings, essentially a housekeeping matter that brings the act up to date; and pro­tec­tion from liability of appeal board members when acting in good faith is an obvious change and matches what other provinces are doing in many different areas.

      It's im­por­tant that, as we move forward with legis­lation and regulation, that any changes to insurance companies are not new taxes that are charged on top of existing policies. This continues to be one of the top concerns for Canadian busi­ness organi­zations and insurance companies.

      So with those few remarks, I look forward to going clause by clause.

      Thank you very much.

The Chairperson: We thank the member.

      During the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 15–The Real Estate Services Amendment Act

The Chairperson: And now we're on to–and now we will move on to Bill 15.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 15 have an opening statement?

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): I do.

      Pleased to have an op­por­tun­ity to provide some brief comments on Bill 15, The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act.

      The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act governs the regula­tion–sorry, The Real Estate Services Act governs the regula­tion of the real estate brokerage and property manage­ment industries in Manitoba and is administered by the Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion, which is part of the Manitoba Financial Services Agency. The regula­tory framework for these industries was updated when The Real Estate Services Act replaced the former real estate brokers act on January 1, 2022.

      As the act is currently drafted, the Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion is impaired in its ability to perform its public interest function. The Securities Com­mis­sion does not currently have the power to freeze bank accounts maintained by a person or com­pany that is required to be registered under the act but have not registered. To put it simply, if you're a bad actor in the real estate sector and therefore you obviously haven't registered your busi­ness under the act with the Securities Com­mis­sion, the gov­ern­ment currently has no power to stop you from behaving badly.

      This makes no sense and leaves the real estate sector open to some fraud and abuse concerns. The legis­lation before this com­mit­tee therefore fixes–proposes to fix this problem.

      There's another issue in the act which we're going to fix: the current legis­lation does not contain timing parameters indicating how long the com­mis­sion has before commencing prosecution under the act. Our gov­ern­ment believes all people and businesses should be treated equally under the law, and therefore our amend­ments will impose a two-year limitation period on prosecutions.

       For the benefit of people in the room tonight or those tuning in online, I should high­light that the two‑year limitation was previously in place; but when legis­lative changes were made, this time limitation on prosecutions was removed. So we're going to fix that issue.

      In summary, this is an im­por­tant consumer pro­tec­tion–piece of consumer pro­tec­tion legis­lation. And with that, I conclude my remarks.

* (18:50)

The Chairperson: We thank the minister.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): Yes, thank you. And, again, I will reiterate with this bill, it's the utmost importance to protect the public interest and current or future investors in this province.

      Again, this legis­lation seems to pre­domi­nantly focus on bad actors, those that have contravened or are about to contravene the act but are not actually registered. So it does appear to close some potential loopholes that may allow those unregistered persons to carry on activities that would have otherwise led to a freezing of assets for a registered party.

      There have been numer­ous changes to The Real Estate Services Act over the years, going back about 10 years when this was first–act was first intro­duced by the former NDP gov­ern­ment. Further loopholes were then closed by the former PC gov­ern­ment that included: fines for misconduct; requiring written service agree­ments between brokerages and home buyers or sellers prior to provi­ding services, to ensure all parties were fully informed on what service was being provided or carried out; and enhancing the ability to take action against persons carrying on unregistered activities.

      So this last point is where this legis­lation that's been brought forward seems to expand upon and just to close another loophole on persons engaging in unregistered activities by allowing the com­mis­sion to freeze those assets. Again, pro­tec­tion of the public is of utmost importance.

      And with that statement, I conclude my remarks.

The Chairperson: We thank the member.

      During the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 27–The Income Tax Amendment Act

The Chairperson: Next, we will move on to Bill 27.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 27 have an opening statement?

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): I do. I just want to provide some brief comments on Bill 27.

      The changes included in Bill 27 will make the Cultural Industries Printing Tax Credit permanent so that it will continue to support the printing and pub­lishing industry here in Manitoba.

      The tax credit offers a refundable credit to Manitoba printers equal to 35 per cent on salary or wages paid to Manitoba employees employed in their book-printing divisions.

      For years, the decision to leave industry wonder­ing whether this credit would be maintained or eliminated created uncertainty. And in these times of uncertainty, when we're in the midst of a two-front trade war, gov­ern­ment should be taking action to improve the invest­ment climate as it can, here in Manitoba. We need more certainty in our economy, not less, and there are some other simplifying elements in this legis­lation that makes our tax statutes more clear. For the record, none of these changes will have any impact on taxpayers.

      On that note, I'm pleased to conclude my brief remarks.

The Chairperson: We thank the minister.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): Yes, thank you.

      And from our side of the bench or the table, the cultural–we support the continuation of the cultural print–industries printing tax credit. We know that it supports both local cultural groups as well as Manitoba authors and publishers. And we know, especially right now, supporting our small busi­nesses in Manitoba has become even more apparent with the ongoing economic uncertainty and current global trade environ­ment.

      So we see busi­nesses that are printing, assembling or binding books have been able to claim that tax credit in the past, and we support the continuation of that.

      And thank you for the time for those remarks.

The Chairperson: We thank the member.

      During con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

MLA Sala: Before getting to Bill 28, which I assume is the next bill in the order, I just wanted to have a chance to take five minutes if I could get support from the critic to just consider some of the amend­ments that were brought forward.

The Chairperson: So it has been proposed to take a five-minute break so that the minister can consult with their team to review the amend­ments received from the op­posi­tion.

      Is this agreed? [Agreed]

      We will recess–it's agreed, and we will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed at 6:56 p.m.

____________

The committee resumed at 7:07 p.m.

The Chairperson: Will the com­mit­tee come back to order now.

Bill 28–The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act

The Chairperson: Okay. So we will now move on to Bill 28.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 28 have an opening statement?

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro): Yes, I do. So happy to have an op­por­tun­ity to provide some opening comments on Bill 28. This is a key piece of legis­lation that will help to implement our Affordable Energy Plan, which we released late last year.

      For decades, Manitoba's abundance of clean, afford­able energy has given our province a unique advantage. Our clean baseload power has driven our economy and helped to build our province. It is our natural advantage.

      However, as we high­lighted in our Affordable Energy Plan, one of the things that currently holds us back is the require­ment to energize requests on a first-come, first-served basis with no con­sid­era­tion of the potential benefits to Manitobans, whether in terms of job creation or economic diversification of our prov­incial revenue gen­era­tion.

      Late last year, we committed to ending this first-come, first-served approach to allocating new energy. And as I've toured the province and spoken with busi­ness leaders and Manitobans, I've heard universally that we are taking the right approach, the one we outlined in our Affordable Energy Plan.

      The legis­lation before this com­mit­tee follows through on our commit­ment that we made in the Affordable Energy Plan to end the first-come, first-served approach. The regula­tion-making author­ity in this bill enables flexibility and the timely allocation of energy, in alignment with the province's economic, environ­mental and social priorities. As the world electrifies, we need to ensure Manitobans get the best value for our clean baseload power, and that's exactly what this legis­lation is designed to do.

      And on that note, I'll conclude my remarks.

      Thank you.

The Chairperson: We thank the minister.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): I do. First, I'd like to say that Manitoba Hydro should be ensuring timely connections to the grid to grow our economy and the services that all Manitobans rely on; and for Manitoba to continue to be able to fulfill their mandate, which is to deliver safe, reliable services at a fair price to customers.

* (19:10)

      We know that Manitoba Hydro is in a financial predicament with their growing $25 billion of debt, $31 billion in projected maintenance and upgrade costs and the capacity needs that they have outlined that they will require within the next five years–in addition to, we're hearing from folks across the pro­vince that there are sig­ni­fi­cant delays in connecting to the grid for electricity.

      This goes beyond Hydro's first-come, first-served model and lends itself to deeper challenges within the Crown cor­por­ation. However, the current legis­lation that's before us today lacks key details that would otherwise provide some con­fi­dence for Manitobans. We have to remember that Manitoba–Manitobans own Manitoba Hydro.

      This bill lacks the definition as to what constitutes an economic priority. It lacks criteria for deter­mining what projects do get stream­lined as a priority, and it lacks an appeal mechanism if a project gets denied or gets pushed to the bottom of the list. This leaves Manitoba Hydro open to political manipulation. And through this legis­lation, as is currently written, the ability for the gov­ern­ment and minister to decide who gets power and when is a concern that Manitobans should have.

      So we have brought forward a few friendly amend­­ments that hope to provide some clarity, as well as some trans­par­ency for Manitoba, but more importantly for Manitoba ratepayers. And so I look forward to going through clause by clause and hope, in the spirit of trans­par­ency and clarity for Manitoba rate­payers, that those amend­ments do get passed.

      Thank you.

The Chairperson: We thank the member.

      So during con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass.

      Shall clause 4 pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Chairperson: I hear a no.

Mrs. Stone: I have an amend­ment.

      Okay. That clause 4–I move

THAT Clause 4 of the Bill be amended

(a) in the proposed subsection 49.2(6), by striking out "regula­tions and" and substituting "regulations, subsection (6.1) and"; and

(b) by adding the following after the proposed subsection 49.2(6):

Cor­por­ation to prioritize certain requests

49.2(6.1) The cor­por­ation must provide service in response to a customer's request in priority to other requests for service if the customer requests use of the power for a resi­den­tial dev­elop­ment, hospital, school or child care centre.

Motion presented.

The Chairperson: The amend­ment is in order.

      The floor is open for questions.

      Are there any questions?

      Is the com­mit­tee ready for the question? Or do–sorry.

An Honourable Member: Just an apology. Just for clarity, so I don't have a question, but I do have a comment about the amend­ment.

The Chairperson: Okay. Minister Sala.

MLA Sala: So I do want to thank the critic for the proposed amend­ment.

      I would say that it's redundant, and the reason is, is because the legis­lation applies to large supplies of power, five megs and over, and it would have to be one heck of a play structure at a daycare or a school or a pretty–like, I don't think it's conceivable that any of these needs would ever be above five megs.

      And as it relates to resi­den­tial dev­elop­ment, Hydro treats them–this would never be a risk because I think they treat them on a lot-to-lot basis. That correct in saying–so there's never a scenario where any of these situations would not already be prioritized.

      So for that reason, I would suggest that this is redundant. And I would say if, in the distant future, there was an exceptionally large new hospital that did require more than five megs, and we got to that kind of a situation, there's already regula­tion making author­ity to ensure that they would be scoped in.

      So, again, I do ap­pre­ciate that this was brought forward. I would just suggest that it's redundant, because there would never be a need for this type of provision.

Mrs. Stone: I thank the minister for that explanation, because there appears to be a lack of clarity in what an economic priority would be for Manitoba Hydro. I felt it was im­por­tant to provide some guidance when Hydro does look at the technical capabilities of a project proponent. You know, very forward-looking. Perhaps maybe there would be some­thing in the future, certainly a resi­den­tial dev­elop­ment or a hospital I would think would come close to this, or be higher than that.

      For those reasons, I think it just spells out for Manitobans and Manitoba ratepayers very clearly that, in the event that that should happen, that those be pushed to the top of the list, as those are services that Manitobans rely on and need.

The Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

An Honourable Member: No.

The Chairperson: Is the com­mit­tee ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

The Chairperson: So the question before the com­mit­tee is the amend­ment from Mrs. Stone. Shall–and I'm not going to re-read the whole thing.

      Shall the amend­ment pass?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Chairperson: I hear a no.

Voice Vote

The Chairperson: All those in favour of the amend­ment, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

The Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

      The amend­ment is accordingly defeated.

* * *

The Chairperson: Shall clause 4 pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

An Honourable Member: No.

The Chairperson: I hear a no.

Mrs. Stone: I have an amend­ment.

      I move

THAT Clause 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection 49.2(8):

Min­is­terial direction must include explanation

49.2(8.1) A direction under subsection (7) must include an explanation of why the minister considers it to be in the public interest to direct the cor­por­ation to provide service in response to a customer's request in priority to other requests for service.

Motion presented.

The Chairperson: The amend­ment is in order.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mrs. Stone: Pleased to bring this amend­ment forward. This is in the spirit of trans­par­ency for Manitoba Hydro projects, and project proponents for grid connections. As I've mentioned before, as Manitobans and legislatures, we need to remember that Manitobans own Manitoba Hydro, and accountability and trans­par­ency are a critical component to continued con­fi­dence in what we know as the Crown jewel of our province.

      It's imperative that gov­ern­ments do not politically inter­fere with the in­de­pen­dent Crown cor­por­ation, and through this legis­lation as it is currently written, there are no–there is no definition as to what constitutes an economic priority, and no criteria in the legis­lation that outlines how and what should be prioritized or stream­lined for grid connection.

* (19:20)

      So this does leave the legis­lation as well as Manitoba Hydro open for political manipulation. This is why that there should be a public disclosure as to what projects get prioritized, denied and the reasons for that. If this minister and this gov­ern­ment supports trans­par­ency and accountability of Manitoba Hydro, then there should be no reason why they wouldn't support this amend­ment.

      And with that said, I encourage support of this amend­ment for the spirit of trans­par­ency and accountability of Manitoba Hydro.

MLA Sala: Ap­pre­ciate the work that went into the amend­ment from the critic and team. I'll just say a few things. One thing is that I think this work that we're doing is going to ensure trans­par­ency, just by the very nature of it, in that all Manitobans and those busi­nesses that are interested in applying for a load will have total clarity over what it is that we're looking for when it comes to, you know, new industrial load.

      I think the–spe­cific­ally, as it relates to the amend­ment, one major concern is that it would compel the minister–myself–to disclose commercially sensitive infor­ma­tion. And why a project might be selected by definition involves an economic assessment, and that assessment involves by definition commercially sensi­tive data.

      So I think we have to be very careful when making legis­lative amend­ments here, and I do have serious concern that bringing this in and including this as part of the change–accepting this amend­ment–would create serious risks and force us to disclose, again, infor­ma­tion that would be commercially sensitive.

      So with that, I conclude my remark.

Mrs. Stone: Thank the minister for his concerns and very aware of sensitive com­mercial projects through my past career.

      As we've seen with other gov­ern­ment in­sti­tutions and how things are done, there is a way to publicly disclose without getting into commercially sensitive infor­ma­tion. This is common; you know, there–a pre­cedent is already there for gov­ern­ment to publicly disclose what's going on in various realms without disclosing specific commercially sensitive infor­ma­tion.

      We all know that if someone is applying for a permit, that's all public: the company name or the busi­ness number. That's just the reality of how things go. The intent of this is not to disclose how much a company is spending for com­mercial purposes.

      This is simply a trans­par­ency piece to ensure that when the minister–as is written in the legis­lation, the minister has given him the directive to do this–prioritizes a certain project, that–or denies or pushes a project past–that there is a brief explanation as to why that is the case, and as I've already mentioned, this is already done in other areas of gov­ern­ment and can easily be done without disclosing commercially sensi­tive infor­ma­tion of that company or project proponent.

The Chairperson: Are there any further questions? No.

      Is the com­mit­tee ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

The Chairperson: The question before the committee is as follows:

THAT Clause 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection 49.2(8):

Min­is­terial direction must include explanation

49.2(8.1) A direction under subsection (7) must include an explanation of why the minister considers it to be in the public interest to direct the cor­por­ation to provide service in response to a customer's request in priority to other requests for service.

      Shall the amend­ment pass?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Chairperson: I hear a no.

Voice Vote

The Chairperson: All those in favour of the amend­ment, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

The Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

      The amend­ment is accordingly defeated.

* * *

The Chairperson: Shall clause 4 pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Chairperson: I hear a no.

Mrs. Stone: I have an amend­ment.

      I move

THAT Clause 4 of the Bill be amended by adding the following before the proposed subsection 49.2(9):

Publication of service requests

49.2(8.2) The cor­por­ation must publish on its website a list of all requests for service that are awaiting the cor­por­ation's response and all those that have been denied, including the following infor­ma­tion for each request:

(a) the date of the request;

(b) whether the request is made by a com­mercial, industrial or resi­den­tial customer;

(c) the service requested;

(d) the munici­pality or locality and unorganized territory in which the service is requested;–and

(e) whether the cor­por­ation has denied the request.

The Chairperson: It has been moved by Mrs. Stone

THAT Clause 4 of the Bill be amended by adding the following before–

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

The Chairperson: Dispense? Dispense.

      The amend­ment is in order.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mrs. Stone: Thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to again bring some comments forward on this amend­ment.

      So, again, the reason for this amend­ment is to pro­vide some clarity and trans­par­ency and accountability, and when and if and how projects are prioritized by the minister's directive to Manitoba Hydro.

      As we've already well laid out, there are sig­ni­fi­cant number of gaps in this bill that's been brought forward by the minister. The current legis­lation, as it is written, lacks key details that would other provides–otherwise provide some con­fi­dence for Manitobans and Manitoba ratepayers.

      It lacks a definition on what constitutes an econo­mic priority; it lacks criteria for deter­mining what projects get stream­lined as a priority; and it lacks an appeal mechanism if a project gets denied or pushed to the back of the list.

      Through this legis­lation, as currently written, the minister has given himself sweeping powers to pick and choose winners and losers, and deter­mining who gets electricity and when.

      This raises sig­ni­fi­cant concerns in what will be brought forward in regula­tion and how the minister does plan to pick winners and losers in interfering with Manitoba Hydro, as he looks to fast-track pro­jects in this province.

      Manitobans deserve to have trans­par­ency and accountability when it comes to Manitoba Hydro, and an area that will strengthen this bill's trans­par­ency is to include this public disclosure as it has been laid out as to the requests that had been received and when they are being approved and when they have been denied.

      This, I understand, is already kind of laid out in the bill. This amend­ment is expanding on that slightly to ensure that there is that clarity for Manitobans and for the project proponents who are looking to find out essentially where in the queue they will be, how long they are wait-listed for, if their project is being denied.

      As we know, for project proponents, construction contracts, permitting, you know, there is a whole slew of different areas that busi­nesses are looking for some certainty if they're going to be investing in this province. And under­standing what that wait-list looks like for those Manitoba Hydro projects could help provide a little bit more certainty for those busi­nesses that are otherwise looking to invest in our great province.

      So again, if the minister and this gov­ern­ment support trans­par­ency and accountability with Manitoba Hydro then we encourage them to support this amend­ment.

MLA Sala: I do feel just–it is im­por­tant at the begin­ning of my comment, just because the critic reiterated, I think, a characterization of this work that does not fairly represent the intent of the bill.

      This is about creating trans­par­ency and ensuring that those busi­nesses that want to access our clean hydro electricity will have total clarity on exactly what it is that we're looking for when it comes to al­locating industrial loads, and it will be centred around ensuring the best economic benefit for Manitoba. So I think that's really im­por­tant just to lay out.

      Again, in terms of this specific amend­ment, you know, I made comments regarding the last amend­ment about–concerns about the release or the revealing of commercially sensitive infor­ma­tion. I would suggest that this amend­ment takes that issue and sort of puts it on turbo drive by, you know, forcing gov­ern­ment to clarify where a busi­ness might want to set up in Manitoba, because it is requesting that we identify the munici­pality, the type of service requested. All this infor­ma­tion creates sig­ni­fi­cant competitive advantage for one busi­ness over another.

      If I'm operating some–a busi­ness that wants to invest in a new tech­no­lo­gy in Manitoba, and I learn that if I come to Manitoba that the gov­ern­ment is going to print and make public that I want to work in a specific area of the province and I'm doing X and Y, that's actually a recipe, I think, for turning invest­ment away. And being a juris­dic­tion where com­mercial proponents may be concerned about trying to get industrial load, because they know that we would be revealing a lot of potentially very sensitive commercial infor­ma­tion.

* (19:30)

      So, again, I do ap­pre­ciate the intent and the work that was done. I would suggest, though, that doing this would not only create sig­ni­fi­cant risks around the release of commercially sensitive infor­ma­tion, but it might also have a further impact of creating less incentive for out-of-province busi­nesses or busi­nesses to want to invest here in Manitoba.

The Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

      Is the com­mit­tee ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Chairperson: The question before the committee is as follows:

THAT Clause 4 of the Bill be amended by adding the following before the–

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

The Chairperson: Dispense.

      Shall the amend­ment pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Chairperson: I hear a no. Or, I mean–yes. Yes, I hear a no.

Voice Vote

The Chairperson: All those in favour of the amendment, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

The Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

      The amend­ment is accordingly defeated.

* * *

The Chairperson: Clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; clause 8–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 37–The Manitoba Financial Services Authority Act and Amendments to
Various Other Acts

The Chairperson: Moving on to Bill 37.

      Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 37 have an opening statement?

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): I do. So happy to have an op­por­tun­ity to provide brief com­ments on Bill 37.

      This legis­lation will modernize the regula­tory structure in Manitoba by reconstituting the Manitoba Financial Services Agency which is currently a special operating agency within the De­part­ment of Finance to a board-governed statutory cor­por­ation that would formally operate at arm's length from gov­ern­ment.

      Manitobans must contend with a financial services landscape that has never been more complicated or filled with potential risks. Manitobans now have a wide range of financial services providers from which to choose: the banks, discount brokers, mutual fund dealers, full-service brokers, as well as a growing number of fintechs provi­ding financial services online.

      These providers offer a myriad of products carry­ing various levels of risk. Unfor­tunately, some of their products that are pitched to Manitobans are fraud­ulent, ranging from romance scams to cryptocurrency frauds. In this environ­ment, it is im­por­tant that the financial services regulator be equipped to deal with the challenges of the modern financial services landscape.

      That is why we're modernizing the structure of the Manitoba Financial Services author­ity.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, this legis­lation will bring Manitoba in line with the provinces who've taken the steps we're proposing today many years ago.

      As I've shared in the House recently during second reading, British Columbia made this change of structure in 1996; Ontario in '97; Alberta, 2000; Quebec, 2002; New Brunswick, 2003; Saskatchewan, 2012.

      We take consumer pro­tec­tion seriously and that's why we're modernizing the Manitoba Financial Services Agency and bringing it into the modern world. The  agency will have statutory respon­si­bility for administration of six financial statutes, including The Securities Act, Commodity Futures Act, The Real Estate Services Act, The Mortgage Brokers Act, The Insurance Act, The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

      It will be led by an expert board appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council that would oversee the regula­tion of securities, real estate, insurance and credit union sectors in the province in a way that is stream­lined, con­sistent and efficient.

      With that, I'll conclude my remarks.

The Chairperson: We thank the minister.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): I'll make my comments very brief on this one.

      In a nutshell, this extensive bill serves as a con­solidation bill of the regulated financial sector. Over the past number of years under the former PC gov­ern­ment, there is some consolidation that was done of various financial regulators to bring them under a single roof. At the Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion, that was in an effort to create some synergies and share resources in areas of financial, pensions, securities, regula­tions.

      So this bill appears to be following that next logical step in consolidation with the imple­men­ta­tion of this act. However, it is a very extensive piece of legis­lation and bill. It's unclear what the minister's explanation how this will better protect Manitobans and the financial sector in general. However, I look forward to having efficiency savings for Manitobans, if that is the case.

      And with those brief remarks, I thank the Chairperson for that op­por­tun­ity.

The Chairperson: We thank the member.

      During the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Also, if there is agree­ment from the com­mit­tee, the Chair will call clauses in blocks that can conform to pages, with the under­standing that we will stop at any parti­cular clause or clauses where members may have com­ments, questions or amend­ments to propose.

      Is that agreed? [Agreed]

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clauses 3 through 6–pass; clauses 7 through 12–pass; clauses 13 through 16–pass; clause 17–pass; clauses 18 through 20–pass; clause 21–pass; clause 22–pass; clauses 23 through 25–pass; clauses 26 through 28–pass; clauses 29 and 30–pass; clauses 31 and 32–pass; clause 33–pass.

      Shall clauses 35 through 38 pass?

An Honourable Member: Pass.

The Chairperson: Clauses thirty–[interjection]–oh, sorry, correction, thirty–[interjection]–oh–34?–34 through 38 pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

The Chairperson: Okay. Clauses 34 through 38 are accordingly passed.

      Clauses 39 through 42–pass; clauses 43 through 47–pass; clauses 48 through 51–pass; clause 52–pass; clause 53–pass; clauses 54 through 57–pass; clauses 58 through 60–pass; clauses 61 and 62–pass; clauses 63 and 64–pass; clauses 65 and 66–pass; clause 67–pass; clause 68–pass; clauses 69 and 70–pass; clause 71–pass; clause 72–pass; clauses 73 and 74–pass; clause 75–pass; clause 76–pass; clause 77–pass; clauses 78 and 79–pass; clause 80–pass; clause 81–pass; clause 82–pass; clauses 83 and 84–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

* (19:40)

Committee Substitution

The Chairperson: I would like to inform the com­mit­tee that, under our rule 84(2), the following member­ship substitution has been made for this com­mit­tee effective imme­diately: Hon­our­able Mr. Simard for Hon­our­able Minister Sala.

      Thank you.

Bill 3–The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment and Planning Amendment Act

(Continued)

The Chairperson: Does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 3 have an opening statement?

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): I do. Good evening. It's my pleasure to provide opening remarks to the standing com­mit­tee on Bill 3, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act.

      Bill 3 amends The City of Winnipeg Charter and The Planning Act by increasing the number of local objectors required to trigger public appeal of a zoning bylaw to the Munici­pal Board from 25 eligible persons to at least 300 eligible persons for a munici­pality or planning district with a census popu­la­tion of at least 6,000; increasing the number of local objectors required to trigger a public appeal of a zoning bylaw to the Munici­pal Board to the greater of 100 eligible persons, or 5 per cent of the census popu­la­tion for a munici­pality or planning district with a census popu­la­tions of less than 6,000; repealing provisions which require the Munici­pal Board to hold a hearing when objections to a zoning bylaw are received from 50 per cent of the total number of owners of property within 100 meters of the affected property.

      The proposed bill is a priority for this gov­ern­ment and these changes to The City of Winnipeg Charter and The Planning Act deliver on our gov­ern­ment's commit­ment to work in col­lab­o­ration with munici­palities to expedite approval timelines and ensure a holistic and balanced approach to land-use-planning process.

      Reducing delays to zoning–local zoning amend­ments will speed up dev­elop­ment approvals and make it easier for munici­palities to build new housing to address housing shortages.

      There are two reasons why we have brought forward this bill. The first is to lighten the load of the Munici­pal Board, who has overseen many zoning appeals that overshadow the other services they can offer munici­palities as they grow. This allows for a  balanced approach that respects the voices of Manitobans and address many munici­palities' goals of growing their com­mu­nities.

      We came to this under­standing after countless hours of listening to mayors, reeves and many local elected officials. We're approaching this legis­lative change in a way that resets the relationship between the province and munici­palities. We're going to do this by completing what the PCs never could do, which is by bringing people together as we work in building up Manitoba.

      I look forward to con­sid­era­tion of this im­por­tant legis­lation by this com­mit­tee, and welcome and thank everyone partici­pating this evening.

      Thank you.

The Chairperson: We thank the minister.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Thank you for the oppor­tun­ity to say a few brief words on Bill 3, here.

      It certainly is some­thing, I think, that's welcome by many munici­palities and, of course, the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities. This is a–certainly a regula­tion that's needed some attention for quite some time over many years that the regula­tion stuck at 25, there. It's been some­thing that, in my time in munici­pal govern­ment, that we asked for, and so we'll welcome this change.

      Having said that, we go back to our presenters' concerns of the number of names that are needed to make that–go to the Munici­pal Board. It's certainly concern for some of those residents in some of those areas that are–don't have that many residents within that distance. So I hope they'll address those concerns.

      Other than that, I don't have a whole lot more to say other than, yes–no, it's some­thing that's definitely going to be welcomed by our munici­pal gov­ern­ments that are looking for the op­por­tun­ity to make their own decisions. They definitely deserve that autonomy; there's–nobody knows their own communities better than they do.

      So having–with that, I thank you for the op­por­tun­ity for a few words on Bill 3.

      Thank you.

The Chairperson: We thank the member.

      During the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

Bill 4–The Planning Amendment Act

(Continued)

The Chairperson: Moving on to Bill 4, does the minister respon­si­ble for Bill 4 have an opening statement?

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): I do.

      Good evening. It is my pleasure to provide open­ing remarks to the standing com­mit­tee on Bill 4, the 'blanning'–The Planning Amend­ment Act.

      Bill 4 amends The Planning Act, give the current 18 member munici­palities the ability to choose to withdraw from the Capital Planning Region. It also provides a mechanism for these and other munici­palities to join the Capital Planning Region in the future.

      This is a significantly different approach from the previous PC gov­ern­ment's heavy-handed imple­men­ta­tion to the planning of the Capital Region. The PCs failed munici­palities when they took away their decision-making power over own land use, ignored their concerns with the planning process and damaged relationships with rural Manitobans.

      We sat down with mayors, reeves and local leaders and had frank conversations about the experiences they had to endure with the planning–Capital Planning Region process under the PCs.

      It will reset the relationship of Manitoba's munici­palities in the Capital Region. Voluntary member­ship means that munici­palities will have a choice to sit at the table. The proposed bill is a priority for this gov­ern­ment and reaffirms our commit­ment to listen to local leadership and respect the autonomy of local gov­ern­ments to make their own decisions for their com­­mu­nities, to represent the ratepayers and their con­stit­uents.

      Once Bill 4 is enacted, a munici­pality wishing to draw–withdraw may do so by passing a council reso­lu­tion and submitting it to the minister. This reso­lu­tion must be submitted to the minister before the next munici­pal general election in October 2026, and upon receipt, a regula­tion to formula–formalize the withdrawal will be enacted. The bill also establishes a process for future withdrawal during the 10-year review of the adopted regional plan.

      Munici­palities can request to join at any time by holding a public hearing, including giving notice, and passing a council reso­lu­tion requesting member­ship in the planning region. The reso­lu­tion must be then sent to the minister. Upon receiving a reso­lu­tion to join, the minister may adjust member­ship of the planning region by regula­tion.

      The gov­ern­ment of Manitoba remains committed to advancing regional planning in co‑ordination. The  proposed bill recognizes the importance of having willing partners working together to develop a co‑ordinated and sus­tain­able long-term vision to build infra­structure, create more jobs and invest in services that are essential to deliver a high quality of life for Manitobans.

      What a regional plan might look like will be up to the munici­palities who decide to partici­pate in the Capital Planning Region. The bill provides the new board up to two years to reset the con­ver­sa­tion and submit a regional plan by January 1, 2027, or by a later date prescribed by regula­tion.

      A renewed Capital Planning Region board will reset and reshape the relationship going forward, with the freedom and choice being its guiding principles. We came to this under­standing after countless hours of listening to mayors, reeves and many local elected officials. We're approaching this legis­lative change in a way that resets the relationship between the province and munici­palities.

      The previous PC gov­ern­ment broke those relation­ships, and we're looking to reset the table. We're going to do this by completing what the op­posi­tion never could do, which is by bringing people together as we work in building up Manitoba.

* (19:50)

      By working together, Capital Regions munici­palities, Indigenous partners and the Province can clearly focus on key shared priorities such as trans­por­tation im­prove­ments, water and wastewater invest­ments, more affordable housing, and safeguarding the health of our waterways for current and future gen­era­tions.

      Regional planning must be flexible and adaptable to regional, as well as local needs. It must address broader, shared priorities through co-ordination and cost-sharing wherein possible.

      I look forward to con­sid­era­tion of this im­por­tant legis­lation by this com­mit­tee, and welcome and thank everyone partici­pating this evening.

      Thank you.

The Chairperson: We thank the minister.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Thanks again for the op­por­tun­ity to comment on Bill 4, here.

      And, yes, this has been a controversial issue over the last year for sure, and I think we favour the munici­palities, again, getting those op­por­tun­ities to make their own decisions and their own autonomy with this Capital Region.

      Having said that, we want to remember the hard work that was put into a regional plan that over the years–and thank those munici­pal repre­sen­tatives of the–put up all that work into it and now it's left them wondering where that capital plan is at, and what the future of it is, and a bit of unclarity as to what decision–how they should make their decision of opt‑in and opt-out, tie it with timelines and maybe not much direction from the Province.

      So I just want to leave that with the minister with some thought as to address some of those issues with those munici­palities, that I as well have heard before. I know you've been in con­ver­sa­tions with them as well, Minister, but I just wanted to make those points on the record.

      And as far–and I would hope, maybe some con­sid­era­tion with Mr. Nicol's pre­sen­ta­tion, wondering if maybe there's other munici­palities that are feeling much like the City of Selkirk is, if they would like their names maybe stricken from this legis­lation as well, also.

      With that, I am going to leave it there and thank you for what you're doing to give the munici­palities their own autonomy and a chance to make their own decisions. At the same time, they still will need that bit of direction from the minister and the Province.

      Thank you.

The Chairperson: We thank the member.

      During the con­sid­era­tion of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Also, if there is agree­ment from the com­mit­tee, the chair will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages, with the under­standing that we will stop at any parti­cular clause, or clauses, where members may have comments, questions, or amend­ments to propose.

      Is that agreed? [Agreed]

      Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clauses 4 and 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clauses 7 and 8–pass; clauses 9 and 10–pass; clause 11–pass; clause 12–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

      The hour being 7:54, what is the will of the com­mit­tee?

Some Honourable Members: Adjourned.

An Honourable Member: Rise.

The Chairperson: Com­mit­tee rise.

COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 7:54 p.m.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Re: Bill 3

On behalf of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities (AMM), I am writing to provide some comments regarding Bill 3: The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment and Planning Amendment Act.

The AMM fully supports the proposed legislative changes to increase the current 25-objector threshold for automatically triggering Municipal Board hearings to 300 eligible persons, for a municipality or planning district with a population of at least 6,000; and the greater of 100 eligible persons or 5% of the population, for a municipality or planning district with a population of fewer than 6,000. This low and outdated threshold has long been a source of frustration for our members at it has often led to an increase in the number of appeals, resulting in undue delays and increased costs to all parties directly impacted by local projects. These proposed changes also help restore municipal autonomy and represent a significant step toward fostering more efficient local governance while preserving the important role of community input in local development decisions.

Additionally, we believe that the proposed changes will create a more thoughtful and efficient framework for local decision-making as democratically elected Councils know their communities best. In particular, these proposed changes will enable municipal Councils to move forward more swiftly with projects that benefit the wider community, enhancing local infrastructure and economic development while at the same time mitigating the likelihood of frivolous or vexatious appeals.

In regard to costs currently being incurred by our members due to an increase in appeals, the examples provided by some municipalities to our office show that each appeal can cost $60,000-$100,000+ per appeal due to legal fees, personnel costs, disbursements, printing, and postage. Therefore, we support the provincial government emphasizing that 'eligible persons' means an eligible voter at an election "of members of the council of the municipality" as per the intent of existing legislation. We also believe filing fees should be established for all appeals and guidance be provided to the Municipal Board on its ability to assign costs for frivolous and vexatious appeals, including the potential for municipalities to recover costs. We understand that the Municipal Board has the existing ability to award costs back to municipalities, however, has chosen not to do so due to historical practice. Municipal funds should be used for investing in their communities and Councils should not be forced to defend themselves from appeal after appeal with no mechanism for cost recovery.

Fundamentally, we welcome Bill 3 as it maintains a space for public engagement while the proposed changes help restore municipal autonomy and strengthen local governance. As the thresholds are increased and modernized, there is a greater balance between local voices and the need for effective development, which is essential for the sustainable growth of all municipalities.

As the provincial government considers other potential changes arising from the ongoing review of Bill 37, the AMM wishes to take this opportunity to reiterate that municipal Councils are in the best position to make decisions based on their knowledge and understanding of their communities. It is their mandate as elected representatives to make decisions based on local priorities and context. The final say of land use planning decisions should not reside with a provincially appointed, unelected body unaccountable to local communities. In several cases, the Municipal Board has essentially acted as the planning authority, undermining the authority and autonomy of local governments and democratically elected municipal officials. To address this matter, municipal Councils should be provided an opportunity to re-visit and make new decisions on land use applications, based on the findings of a modernized Municipal Board or similar body following a potential appeal. Thus, we urge the provincial government to bring forward additional legislative and regulatory changes at the earliest opportunity to make sure municipal voices are respected. Furthermore, we also stand ready to review and provide feedback on legislation that is expected to be introduced regarding municipal participation in regional planning boards.

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and the AMM looks forward to continued collaboration between the provincial government and local Councils in shaping policies that reflect the unique interests of municipalities.

Respectfully and sincerely,

Kathy Valentino
President
Association of Manitoba Munici­palities

____________

Re: Bill 3

Dear Members of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs:

On behalf of Manitoba's residential construction and land development industries, thank you for the opportunity to prove written comments to you regarding Bill 3 – The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment and Planning Amendment Act. As you may be aware, UDI Manitoba and the Manitoba Home Builders' Association have been key stakeholders to provincial officials in the development of Bills 3 & 4. We have also been engaged with Braid Solutions as they undertake the statutory legislative review of Manitoba's planning legislation on behalf of the provincial government.

Bill 3 raises the currently threshold of 25 objectors being able to trigger an appeal of a planning decision to the Municipal Board. We have expressed specific concerns with this aspect of the planning legislation ever since it's introduction. We are pleased that the provincial government is taking steps to address this. The WMR public hearing experience of last year has demonstrated that this threshold is far too low and is unworkable. Individuals can organize via social media very quickly and essentially have a "veto" for an automatic appeal. This empowers and enables, rather than dissuades, frivolous appeals and there is no mechanism currently to prevent this.

Our recommendation is that in addition to increasing the threshold significantly, that other appeal criteria be added to ensure that appeals to the Municipal Board are legitimate and are not simply frivolous in nature. Those criteria should include:

·   All appellants must have participated directly in the municipal hearings process and have expressed what it is they are specifically objecting; and

·   The appeal triggered by citizens must be based on a specific aspect of planning policy not being adhered to by the municipality in its decision.

We have additional recommendations and concerns with the current Municipal Board appeal process, including the de novo nature of the Board's hearings. We have outlined these concerns in greater detail as part of our feedback to the statutory review. We are encouraged that the 25-person threshold is being addressed in Bill 3 and we hope the provincial government will act further on our detailed recommendations to address other shortcomings with the current Municipal Board appeal process as a response to the review's findings.

Sincerely,

Lanny McInnes
Manitoba Home Builders' Association & UDI Manitoba

____________

Re: Bill 3

Currently the requirement is 25 voters or 50% of the landowners within 100 metres of the real property being affected by the by-law change. Now the City/Govt wants to change that to for City of Wpg citizens to 300 Eligible persons. What is the definition of "eligible" person. Who determines this?

The entire rezoning process from the start to the final hearing at the Municipal Board is slanted in favour of the City of Wpg and the Developer. The property owner/citizen has very little input but they are the ones that ultimately live in that neighbourhood, not the planners, developers, council members and other elected officials.

We only need to look at our case that just recently was heard at the Municipal Board back on March 25, 2205.

In our case there are only 117 residential properties that are directly adjacent to the subject property seeking a rezoning & variance on portions of the land. In the new format how does one get 300 "eligible persons" to sign a petition when there is only 117 potential residences?

The East Kildonan-Transcona Community Committee ignored the recommendation by the City of Winnipeg Planner as it relates to Block 1 and 5 zoning.

Currently homeowners are given a whole 10 mins to putt their position forward on a rezoning matter. Just recently it was reported in the WFP that the City of Wpg now wants to cut that time limit down to 5 mins. This appears to be another step in stifling homeowners from their democratic rights to object. This coupled with this change to 300 eligible persons will make it almost impossible for homeowners to voice their concerns.

If this is implemented what recourse do individual homeowners have if the rezoning of an adjacent parcel has a negative effect on their property? If the City Wpg grants a rezoning/variance that may impact an adjacent parcel does that mean they have effectively expropriated the affected parcel? Can the homeowner now claim under the expropriations act?

Would you like a 4-5 storey apartment block being built behind your house? How desirable is your house now when you want to sell?

I an recent case at 4025 Roblin (File 22D2A-002) provides guidance what a third party (Municipal Board) can provide in a rezoning plan that was rammed through with little consideration for the neighbouring property owners. Proposed 10 storey apartments to revised plan of 3-4 storey buildings.

Bottom line a development should be planned with thought and consideration along with meaningful input by the existing residents. We are the ones that ultimately that will be living in the community. A home is one of the largest investments ($500-$600K) a person makes in their life and they just want some certainty as to what is going to be built in close proximity to them without any surprises and any potential loss in value.

Bottom line what is being proposed of 300 eligible person is a hurdle that prevents many if not all future rezoning/variance application to just sail through with no opposition. What happened to the percentage of the affect properties? Un­demo­cratic.

Objection To Proposed Subdivision / Rezoning / Variance Application

Submitted to the Municipal Board of Manitoba

File Number: 24D2A-0005

Re: Plessis and Dugald DASZ 16/2024

Hearing date: March 25th, 2025

Re File: DASZ 16/2024 - Subdivision / Rezoning Variance – Dugald Rd & Plessis Rd

Objection Overview to the proposed development:

·   Is not consistent with Plan Winnipeg and any applicable secondary plan.

·   Is not consistent nor meets Complete Communities guidelines/vision. The area lacks any retail amenities, proposed size of Block 1 & 5 are out of character to neighbouring lands (majority single family).

·   The proposed rezoning of a portion of the subject lands is not compatible with the surrounding properties - Block 1 (North) & Block 5 (South) - the proposed density and heights are not compatible to the surrounding properties.

·   Does create a substantial adverse effect on the amenities, use, safety, privacy, and convenience on the adjacent properties and/or area, including an area separated from the property by a street or waterway. 

·   The proposed modification to the zoning on the subject lands may/will cause injurious affection and/or impact values to all and/or some of the adjacent properties.

·   The East Kildonan-Transcona Community Committee ignored the recommendation by the City of Winnipeg Planner as it relates to Block 1 and 5 zoning.

·   Block 1 (North) & Block 5 (South) proposed zoning/variance does not identify the type, design or the orientation of the structures.

·   The area currently has limited / inadequate public transit and no future plans for additional service are contemplated. With the higher density parcels this will lead to congestion and safety issues.

·   The proposed rezoning and zoning variance is considered to be incompatible with the character, context and build form of the surrounding dwellings and established neighbourhood.

·   One needs to look at the overall development at Waterside East (current) & Waterside West (Proposed) in its totality to see that the RMF-S & M being proposed for Blocks 1 & 5 are not compatible for the area.

Mrs. Luanne Diachun

____________

Re: Bill 4

On behalf of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities (AMM), I am writing to provide some brief comments regarding Bill 4: The Planning Amendment Act.

Since democratically elected municipal Councils know their communities best, the AMM welcomes the provincial government proposing legislative changes to enable a municipality to withdraw from the Capital Planning Region, if desired, following a clear and transparent process. For municipalities that may choose to opt-out, we would welcome further consultations regarding timing parameters to ensure participating municipalities can plan accordingly. We also understand that related amendments will apply to other planning regions that may be established in the future.

The AMM fully supports the autonomy of each municipality to make decisions that best serve their communities. At the same time, we recognize that regional collaboration plays a major role in attracting business investment and fostering sustainable economic growth. By enabling municipalities to make decisions tailored to their unique contexts, this legislation enhances their ability to serve residents effectively and contributes to building a stronger, more resilient Manitoba.

In closing, the AMM appreciates the Government of Manitoba's commitment to strengthening municipal autonomy while promoting collaborative growth opportunities across the province. We encourage the passage of Bill 4 and look forward to continued partnership in support of Manitoba's municipalities.

Respectfully and sincerely,

Kathy Valentino
President
Association of Manitoba Munici­palities

____________

Re: Bill 4

Dear Members of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs:

On behalf of Manitoba's residential construction and land development industries, thank you for the opportunity to prove written comments to you regarding Bill 4 – The Planning Amendment Act. As you may be aware, UDI Manitoba and the Manitoba Home Builders' Association have been key stakeholders to provincial officials in the development of Bills 3 & 4. We have also been engaged with Braid Solutions as they undertake the statutory legislative review of Manitoba's planning legislation on behalf of the provincial government.

Bill 4 provides the municipalities of the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region (WMR) with the ability to opt out of participating in the planning region. Our industry has been a strong advocate for improved regional planning for the WMR and we continue to believe a regional approach is key to maximizing the infrastructure investments all levels of government make in building our region. Understanding the objectives and outcomes that the provincial government is wanting to achieve via regional planning for the WMR is important information for all involved to have.

If the WMR's proposed "Plan 20-50" wasn't the answer, what is the government's proposal to address regional planning?

It should also be mentioned that there are concerns from our industry that, with the status of "Plan 2050" now in question, some WMR municipalities are looking to make changes to their own zoning bylaw to increase lot sizes. With the lack of a regional plan to reference and the challenges for industry to gather a large group in opposition, more municipalities could follow suit. Should this happen, the supply of developable land based on several factors – serviceability and economics - will only decrease within the WMR. Regional planning is important and provincial oversight and guidance is also key. We believe the Provincial government should consider undertaking a review and update of the Provincial Land Use Policies and we would welcome the opportunity to participate in that process.

We hope our recommendations and commentary will be considered and we stand ready to continue assisting the provincial government through this review process.

Sincerely,

Lanny McInnes
Manitoba Home Builders' Association & UDI Manitoba

Legislative Affairs Vol. 5

TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON –
MLA Carla Compton
(Tuxedo)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON –
Mr. Diljeet Brar
(Burrows)

ATTENDANCE – 6 —
QUORUM – 4

Members of the committee present:

Hon. Min. Moroz,
Hon. Min. Sala

Mr. Brar,
MLA Compton,
Mr. King,
Mrs. Stone

Substitutions:

Hon. Min. Simard for
Hon. Min. Sala
at 7:41 p.m.

APPEARING:

Hon. Glen Simard,
MLA for Brandon East

PUBLIC PRESENTERS:

Bill 4 – The Planning Amend­ment Act

Duane Nicol, City of Selkirk

Bill 3 – The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act

Dan Diachun, private citizen

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Bill 3 – The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act

Kathy Valentino, Association of Manitoba Munici­palities

Lanny McInnes, Urban Dev­elop­ment In­sti­tute of Manitoba

Luanne Diachun, private citizen

Bill 4 – The Planning Amend­ment Act

Kathy Valentino, Association of Manitoba Munici­palities

Lanny McInnes, Urban Dev­elop­ment In­sti­tute of Manitoba

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Bill 3 – The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act

Bill 4 – The Planning Amend­ment Act

Bill 14 – The Insurance Amend­ment Act

Bill 15 – The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act

Bill 27 – The Income Tax Amend­ment Act

Bill 28 – The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment Act

Bill 37 – The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts.

* * *