Manitoba Committee Hansard — 19 April 2021 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 9, 42nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

42-3-sed9

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. James Teitsma Constituency of Radisson Vol. LXXV No. 9 - 6 p.m., Monday, April 19, 2021 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Second Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ADAMS, Danielle Thompson NDP ALTOMARE, Nello Transcona NDP ASAGWARA, Uzoma Union Station NDP BRAR, Diljeet Burrows NDP BUSHIE, Ian Keewatinook NDP CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. Kildonan-River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Roblin PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne, Hon. Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GORDON, Audrey, Hon. Southdale PC GUENTER, Josh Borderland PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah, Hon. Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg, Hon. Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek, Hon. Interlake-Gimli PC JOHNSTON, Scott Assiniboia PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMONT, Dougald St. Boniface Lib. LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib.

LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya Notre Dame NDP MARTIN, Shannon McPhillips PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC MOSES, Jamie St. Vital NDP NAYLOR, Lisa Wolseley NDP NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Turtle Mountain PC REYES, Jon Waverley PC SALA, Adrien St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron, Hon.

Springfield-Ritchot PC SMITH, Andrew Lagimodière PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Vérendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WASYLIW, Mark Fort Garry NDP WHARTON, Jeff, Hon. Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC

339 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Monday, April 19, 2021 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Shannon Martin (McPhillips) ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Johnson, Wharton Messrs. Bushie, Martin, Teitsma, Wiebe APPEARING: Mr. Dougald Lamont, MLA for St. Boniface Mr. Wab Kinew, MLA for Fort Rouge PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 37 – The Planning Amendment and City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act Mr.

Ivan Normandeau, Association of Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities Mr. Kam Blight, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Stephen Kupfer, 5008735 Manitoba Ltd. Mr. Marc Pittet, private citizen Mr. Duane Nicol, City of Selkirk Mr. Brian Bowman, City of Winnipeg Mr. Lanny McInnes, Manitoba Home Builders' Association Ms. Cheryl Christian, RM of West St. Paul Mr. Brent Olynyk, private citizen Ms. Cara Nichols, private citizen Mr. John Mauseth, RM of Headingley Mr. Michael Carruthers, private citizen Mr. Allan Borger, Ladco Company Ltd. Mr. Brad Erb, RM of Macdonald Mr. Paul Bell, private citizen Mr.

Bryan Ward, Qualico Ms. Sheila Mowat, RM of East St. Paul Mr. Tim Comack, Ventura Mr. Mark Olson, private citizen Mr. Michael Lackmanec, RM of Cartier Bill 25 – The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act Mr. Marc Lemoine, private citizen Mr. Sherwood Armbruster, private citizen Bill 38 – The Building and Electrical Permitting Improvement Act (Various Acts Amended and Permit Dispute Resolution Act Enacted) Mr. Lanny McInnes, Mani toba Home Builders' Association Bill 53 – The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act

(2) Ms. Dorothy Kleiber, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 25 – The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act Denys Volkov, Associa tion of Manitoba Municipalities Bill 37 – The Planning Amendment and City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act Trish Fraser, Municipality of Nort h Cypress- Langford Eleanor Link, private citizen Bev Pike, private citizen Bill 38 – The Building and Electrical Permitting Improvement Act (Various Acts Amended and Permit Dispute Resolution Act Enacted) Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Darryl Harrison, Win nipeg Construction Association Bill 53 – The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act

(2) Denys Volkov, Association of Manitoba Municipalities MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 25 – The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act Bill 37 – The Planning Amendment and City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act Bill 38 – The Building and Electrical Permitting Improvement Act (Various Acts Amended and Permit Dispute Resolution Act Enacted) Bill 53 – The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act (2) * * *

340 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 Clerk Assistant (Mr. Tim Abbott): Good evening. Would the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. Welcome, everybody. Our first item of business is the election of a Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Shannon Martin (McPhil lips): I would like to nominate Mr. Teitsma. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Teitsma has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Teitsma, please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nomina- tions? Hon.

Derek Johnson (Minister of Municipal Relations): I'd like to nominate MLA Martin. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Martin has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, MLA Martin is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 25, The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 37, The Planning Amendment and City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act; Bill 38, the building and electrical permittin g act , various acts amended and permit dispute resolution act enacted; and Bill 53, the municipal statutes amendment act.

I'd like to inform all in attendance of the provision in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. As a standing committee meeti ng to consider a bill, we must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause -by-clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of a–of the committee.

Written submissions from the following people have been received and distributed to all committee members: Dennis Volkov, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, on Bill 38, same on Bill 25 and the same on Bill 53; Trish Fraser from the municipality of North Cypress -Langford, on Bill 37; Eleanor Link, private citizen, on Bill 37; and Bev Pike, private citizen, on Bill 37.

Does the committee agree to have these docu - ments appear in the Hansard transcript of this meet - ing? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a committee. In accor - dance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentation, with another five min - utes allowed for questions from committee members. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

We're just going to take 30 seconds for a moment to see if there's an –what we can do about the audio issue that we're experiencing with Zoom. All right. This is just a quick test of our a udio to make sure it's working well. Test one, two, three. All right. I'm told the audio is much better now, so I can continue. As I was saying, 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. Also, if any presenter has any written materials for distribution to the committee, please send the file by email to the moderator, who will distribute it to all committee members. I have three leave requests for the committee. We have a presenter this evening who wishes to speak to–speak in French, Mr.

Ivan Normandeau, who is No. 14 on the list for Bill 37 before us. Our usual practice is to allow presenters speaking in French to go first. Is it the will of the committee to allow Mr. Normandeau to present first? [Agreed] We have also received a request from Marc Lemoine and Sherwo od Armbruster, who are No. 1 and 2 on the list for Bill 25 before us, that they be able to present together. Is it the will of the committee to allow Mr. Lemoine and Mr. Armbruster to present together? [Agreed] And the third leave request is actually f rom me, which is, in light of the long list of presenters for

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 341 Bill 37 and with the exception of Mr. Normandeau, who we've already noted–Mr. Ivan Normandeau, that is–that we consider the bills in the –the ones with the fewest presenters first. So my proposed order is 25, 38, 53 and then 37. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Very good. So we'll begin with the French presenter. Is that correct Mr. Clerk? Yes? Yes. Mr. Martin: One last request, Mr. Chair, notwithstanding the French translation, if we could take thos e presenters–identified themselves out of town on the respective lists first. Oh, virtual, I forgot.

I forgot it's virtual. Sorry. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Thank you, Mr. Martin, for reminding us of how things used to be before we were all allowed to p articipate virtually. Now there's no preference given to out-of-town presenters because everybody presents virtually. Bill 37–The Planning Amendment and City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: So we will now begin with public presentations. And I will call on Mr. Ivan Normandeau. Al l right, and we're going to call on Mr. Ivan Normandeau and ask the moderator to invite him into the meeting. I ask Mr.

Normandeau if he could unmute himself and turn his video on. * (18:10) All right, and w e'll–with apologies, Monsieur Normandeau, un moment s'il te plaît. [One moment, please.] We are just waiting for some earpieces for those of us who require translation services, I believe. Floor comment: No problem. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, not a ll of us are fully bilingual. Appreciate everybody's patience. We are still waiting the arrival of translation devices in the room and they're not quite here yet. All right. Thank you all very much for your patience.

Monsieur Normandeau, we are now ready to hear your presentation. Please proceed. I believe–Monsieur Normandeau, I believe your mute may be on. We're not hearing you. There we go. I can see you now, but still not hav- ing audio. Monsieur Normandeau, if you can, sir? Monsieur Normandeau, we're not able to hear you quite yet. Are you able to try your audio one more time and just see if we can hear you? Technology can be a wonderful thing, but today it is not. So–or, at least not in this instance. So, Mr.

Normandeau, we were able to hear you– we were able to hear you at one point but we don't seem to be able to hear you now. I'm not sure if there's anything that changed at your end? But perhaps try unmute yourself one more –[interjection] Oh, there you are. I can hear you. Floor Comment: Okay, can I try now? Can you hear me in English? Mr. Chairperson: I can, and I believe we have translation working shortly. All right, so please go ahead. En français, s'il te plait. [In French, please.] Mr. Ivan Normandeau (Association of Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities): Mesdames et messieurs, les membres du comité permanent.

Tout d'abord, au nom du conseil d'administration de l'Association des municipalités bilingues du Manitoba, l'AMBM, je vous remercie de m'accueillir pour vous présenter le point de vue du leadership municipal bilingue envers le Projet de loi 37 de la Province du Manitoba. Depuis les années 1980, l'AMBM est la voix du leadership municipal bilingue dans la prov - ince du Manitoba. Notre association représente 15 gouvernements de proximité engagés à offrir des services de deux langues officielles à leur population.

C'est comme ça que la Ville de Winnipeg et nos 14 autres membres en milieu rural contribuent activement au développement des communautés de deux langues officielles en situation minoritaire de la province. L'AMBM est également propriétaire de deux filiales. D'abord, le conseil de développement économique du Manitoba bilingue du Manitoba, CDEM, qui est au service du développement économique et de l'entrepreneurship d epuis 1996. Puis, Éco- Ouest Canada, qui appuie les petites et moyennes municipalités dans la mise en place de stratégies en économie verte.

Tel que le communiqué de ma lettre du 4 juin 2020 à la ministre des relations de municipalités –à l'époque Madame Rochelle Squires–l'AMBM appuie les efforts de représentation menés par l'association des municipalités et la Ville de Winnipeg à l'égard de

342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 ce projet de loi destiné à modifier la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Charte de la ville de Winnipeg. Aujourd'hui, mes commentaires porteront spéci - fiquement sur le texte actuel du projet de la loi 37 et auront comme objectif d'obtenir plus de clarté sur certains points de ce même projet de loi. L'aménagement du territoire, c'est le fruit du travail combiné des gouvernements, en particulier le provincial et les municipalités.

Deux ordres de gouvernement complémentaires qui jouent des rôles différents dans un processus complexe, en partenariat avec le secteur privé qui innove, qui prend des risques et qui génère de l'activité économique sur le territoire. * (18:20) L'AMBM a plusieurs préoccupations face à ce projet de loi. Tout comme vous, j'en suis certain, nos membres sont d'accord que le développement du territoire doit se faire de façon efficace, efficient e et cohérente. Mais nous croyons que la mise en place d'une telle loi ferait augmenter la bureaucratie et donc les coûts financiers et administratifs en conséquence.

Avec la pandémie de la COVID -19, plus que jamais, les projets du secteur privé et communautaire seront clés pour relancer notre économie, mais il faut être capable de garantir à nos collectivités que ces initiatives s'appuient sur des processus transparents et économiques. Le gouvernement propose que les appels de décisions soient entendus devant la Commission municipale. L'AMBM et l'AMM proposent plutôt que les différends soient réglés au niveau local, municipal, pour trouver efficacement des solutions et arriver à certains accords. C'est le principe même de la subsidiarité en action.

Nous croyons que le mécanisme d'appel, tel que proposé par le gouvernement, aura de grandes implications. D'abord, il risque à discréditer la raison d'être de nos gouvernements locaux. Aussi, il est donc contraire au principe d'autodétermination de nos collectivités qui ont le droit d'agir sur leur propre développement économique, social et culturel. Après tout, les gouvernements de proximité sont les mieux placés pour trouver des solutions mutuellement gagnantes et jouer pleinement de leur rôle subsidiaire.

De plus, nous questionnons les ressources de la Commission municipale et sa connaissance des enjeux locaux dans nos municipalités. Nous craignons l'accumulation des délais dans le traitement d'appels. Je suis confiant que la Province souhaite réduire l'accès–ne souhaite pas de réduire l'accès de notre population à se faire entendre et à participer activement à l'avenir de leur collectivité.

Dans le présent dossier, nous voulons aussi assurer à notre francophonie et à nos Métis franco - phones qu'ils pourront contribuer pleinement à la vie communautaire et économique, qu'ils pourront faire entendre leur voix facilement, efficacement dans la mise en place d'infrastructures répondant à leurs besoins et enjeux. Nous sommes aussi préoccupés par le fait que le modèle propose par le gouvernement ne prévoit aucun mécanisme de médiation, que son manque de clarté entraîne des demandes d'appels frivoles et l'absence de limites concernant l'ampleur des appels ouvre la porte aux abus.

En terminant, tout comme l'AMM, nous recommandons que le gouvernement du Manitoba inspire davantage les pratiques en vigueur dans les autres provinces et qu'il précise la portée à les paramètres des appels dans la législation plutôt que dans la réglementation.

En bref, à l'instar de l'AMM, l'AMBM vous recommande d'apporter les amendements suivants au Projet de loi 37 du gouvernement du Manitoba : exiger que toute personne déposant un appel indique la cause de l'appel dans le formulaire de dépôt; (2) limiter les motifs d'appel admissibles, pour agir en cohérence avec les lois des autres provinces; (3) limiter les appels à ceux qui sont déjà engagés dans le processus, comme c'est le cas en Ontario; (4) limiter d'envergure des décisions d'appel rendues par la Commission municipale afin que celle-ci ne puisse pas devenir un nouveau palier de gouvernement en rédigeant de nouveaux règlements ou en imposant de nouveaux coûts; (5) réduire les délais d'appel en inspirant des normes en vigueur dans les autres provinces; (6) imposer des mesures de respo nsabilisation à la Commission municipale dans le cas où des retards entourant l'audition ou la clôture des appels entraîneraient d'importants délais.

Et je me permets d'ajouter un –une septième recommandation : que la Province, dans la mise en œuvre du projet de la loi 37 et en partenariat avec les municipalités, s'engage à travailler en collaboration avec l'AMBM et les communautés de langues officielles de situations minoritaires en matière d'aménagement régional du territoire sur des objectifs et des inté rêts communs, pour assurer le développe - ment économique et communautaire continu.

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 343 En terminant, je tiens à souligner que le gouvernement provincial est pour nous un partenaire incontournable. Le gouvernement Pallister est réputé pour être pragmatique et adopter une approche basée sur le gros bon sens. Pour tous ces raisons, je suis assuré que vous recevrez une grande considération des recomman - dations émises par l'AMBM et par notre grande alliée, l'AMM. En vous souhaitant de fructueuses délibérations, je vous remercie pour votre attention. Merci. Translation Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Committee.

First, on behalf of the Association of Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities, AMBM, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present the pe r- spective of our association’s leadership in regards to Bill 37. Since the 1980s, the AMBM has been the voice of bilingual municipal leadership in Manitoba. Our association represents 15 local governments com - mitted to offering services in both official languages to their populations. This is how the City of Winnipeg and our other 14 rural members actively contribute to the development of official language minority com - munities in the province.

The AMBM also has two subsidiaries. First, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities, or CDEM, which has been helping with economic development and entrepre - neurship since 1996; and second, Eco- West Canada, which supports small and medium municipalities in implementing green economy strategies. As stated in my June 4, 2020, letter to the Minister of Municipal Relations –at that time, Ms.

Rochelle Squires–the AMBM supports the advocacy efforts led by the Association of Manitoba Municipalities and the City of Winnipeg regarding this bill designed to amend The Planning Act and The City of Winnipeg Charter. My comments today will deal specifically with the actual wording of Bill 37, as we seek to clarify some of its elements.

Land use planning is the result of combined efforts by governments, specifically the provincial government and municipalities –two com- plementary levels of government with different responsibilities in a complex process –in partnership with the private sector, which innovates, takes risks and generates economic activity in the region. The AMBM has several concerns regarding this bill. As you surely do, our members agree that land- use planning must be done effectively, efficiently and coherently.

However, we are of the opinion that the implementation of this bill would increase bureau- cratic red tape, and thus increase financial and administrative costs. In the context of the COVID -19 pandemic more than ever, private- and community-sector projects will be essential to restart our economy, but we must be able to guarantee to our communities that these initiatives are based on transparent and cost-effective processes. The government proposes that objections be referred to the Municipal Board.

The AMBM and AMM suggest that objections be settled at the local level, that is the municipality level, in order to efficiently find solutions and come to agreements. This is what the principle of subsidiarity is all about. We believe that the objection process, as proposed by the government, will have significant impacts. First, it might undermine the fundamental purpose of our local governments. Second, it goes against the principle of self- determination for our communities, which have the right to direct their own economic, social and cultural development.

After all, local governments are best positioned to find win- win solutions and fulfill their subsidiary responsibilities. Additionally, we have doubts about the Municipal Board’s resources and knowledge of local issues in our municipalities. We fear an accumulation of delays in the processing of objections. I trust the Province’s intent is not to reduce access to this process for our residents, or their opportunities to participate actively in building the future of their communities.

On the current matter, we also want to assure our French-speaking residents and French- speaking Métis that they will be able to contribute actively to the community and econom y, and to have their voices heard easily and efficiently in regards to the implementation of infrastructure designed to address their needs and issues. We are also concerned that the model proposed by the government contains no mediation option, that its lack of clarity might give way to frivolous objections, and that the lack of safeguards regarding the scope of objections might leave the process open to abuse.

344 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 To conclude, along with the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, we recommend that the Government of Manitoba draw more inspiration from current prac - tices in other provinces, and that the scope and limits of objections be specified in the legislation, rather than in the regulations.

To summarize, like the AMM, the AMBM recommends making the following changes to Bill 37: (1) requiring that any person filing an objection indicate the reason for objection in the filing form; (2) limiting valid reasons for objections, to insure consistency with legislation in other provinces; (3) limiting objections to stakeholders already involved in the process, as in Ontario; (4) limiting the scope of decisions made by the Municipal Board, in order to avoid the Board becoming another level of government writing new regulations or imposing new fees; (5) reducing objection deadlines, based on current standards in other provinces; (6) imposing accountability mea- sures on the Municipal Board, in the event hearing delays and filing deadlines cause significant delays.

I will add a seventh recommendation: that, when implementing Bill 37 and partnering with munici pa- lities, the Province commit to work together with the AMBM and minority -language communities on re - gional land use issues based on common objectives and interests, to ensure continued economic and com- munity development. In closing, I wish to emphasize that we consider the provincial government an essential partner. The Pallister government is known for being pragmatic and favouring a good old common sense approach.

For all these reasons, I know that you will give great consideration to the recommendations of the AMBM and our great ally, the AMM. I wish you fruitful discussions and thank you for your attention. Mr. Chairperson: Just letting our translation team catch up to you, Monsieur Normandeau. Monsieur Normandeau, merci pour votre présentation. Translation Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Normandeau. English We'll now move on to questions. Questions from committee members? Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Municipal Relations): I just want to thank you for taking the time to come out and present today.

I definitely appreciate everything that the AMBM does. I don't know if you're familiar with my past, but I was on council in St. Laurent–RM of St. Laurent, which is one of your members. So I was on there for four years. So I'm – definitely know first-hand of all the help that you've done over the years in my home municipality. So we kind of believe that Bill 37 aims to improve the efficiency and transparency and accountability of planning while also enhancing opportunities for eco- nomic growth in communities across the province.

And I think, you know, as a government, we think this is critical to support responses and recovery efforts that, you know, as we begin to emerge from the challenges created by COVID -19 pandemic, but – anyway, thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation, and we appreciate the time that you took out of your day to bring that forward to us here today. Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur Normandeau, une réponse pour le ministre? Translation Mr. Normandeau, do you have a response for the minister? Mr. Normandeau: Oui, merci beaucoup pour ta réponse.

Puis certainement, nous voulons travailler ensemble avec la Province et on veut certainement être un allié avec–Merci. Translation Thank you very much for your response. We certainly want to work together with the Province, and we can certainly be an ally. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions? Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Nor mandeau, for your presentation this evening. I appreciate your advocacy on behalf of your members and bringing that particular point of view that you bring on behalf of them to the committee tonight.

I think you've echoed a lot of the concerns that I've heard thus far and I think you've set the tone for this evening and a lot of the things that we're going to hear from many of our presenters this evening; name- ly, about increased bureaucracy, a lag in the appeal process and many other concerns.

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 345 I especially take your point that the work that you do is to engage people in the democratic process; that's what your organization does. And so I take the point that you are, you know, as an organization trying to get people more engaged in democracy. And yet here we have a bill that actually takes the democratic process away from those people that you're trying to represent. And, again, I think we're going to hear a lot of that from local municipalities who do their darndest to represent the ratepayers across Manitoba.

So we're definitely listening to those concerns. I just wanted to ask specifically about one of the items that you mentioned. You sort of had a long list of proposed amendments, and I think the first one–and I didn't quite catch exactly what you said–maybe you can spend a bit more time on it. It was with regards to the cost of those appeals. And maybe if you could just take a couple seconds to give us a little more infor - mation on that. Mr. Normandeau: J'ai pas les coûts exacts.

J'ai seulement peur que, avec tous les demandes, que les coûts vont augmenter pour non seulement les privés, mais aussi pour les membres de les communautés. Je crois qu'il va y avoir beaucoup de délais et les délais vont amener des coûts pour nos municipalités et pour– aussi pour nos membres, juste du public, qu'ils vont falloir payer pour des fois avoir des demandes qui devraient pas être là. Translation I do not have exact cost figures. I am just afraid that, with all the applications, costs might go up, not only for the private sector, but also for residents of the communities.

I think there will be a lot of delays, and delays will mean costs for our municipalities and also for our residents, for the public. We will have to pay for some applications that should not be allowed. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions? Mr. Wiebe–oh, no? Mr. Wiebe: Just to thank the presenter. Mr. Chairperson: All right, my apologies. Further questions? Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Oui, merci. Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation.

Je sais que ce n'est pas vraiment–ce projet de loi, ce n'est pas vraiment une réponse au pandémie, c'était quelque chose qui a été introduit avant la pandémie. * (18:30) Mais est -ce que l'AMBM a été consultée en avance? Parce que je sais que–ou quand on consultait avec le rapport de la trésorerie qui a été préparé? Quelle sorte de consultation est-ce que vous avez eue pour ce projet de loi? Translation Yes, Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. I know that this bill is not really an ans wer to the pandemic; it was introduced before the pandemic. But was the AMBM consulted in advance?

Or was there consultation with the treasury’s report having already been prepared? What type of consultation was done with you for that bill? Mr. Normandea u: Je crois que nous n' avons eu aucune consultation. Translation I believe there was no consultation. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions? Mr. Lamont: Bien, merci beaucoup , Monsieur. Je veux seulement dire merci beaucoup Monsieur Normandeau. On apprécie beaucoup le travail acharné que vous faites à l'AMBM et aussi pour les amendements que vous avez introduits aujourd'hui. Merci bien. Translation Thank you very much, s ir. I would just like to thank Mr.

Normandeau. We really appreciate the tireless work you do at the AMBM and the changes that you proposed today. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: That's all the time we have for questions. And, Monsieur Normandeau, merci pour votre présentation. Translation Mr. Normandeau, thank you for your presentation. Bill 25–The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: We'll now move to the next presenter, as pre viously agreed. That means we're going to go to our list from Bill 25, and Marc Lemoine and Sherwood Armbruster requested to present together, so I'll now call on both of them and ask the

346 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 moderator to invite them into the meeting, and I ask them to unmute themselves and turn their video on. All right, I believe I can see you now. So you can go ahead with your presentation. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr. Marc Lemoine ( Private Citizen ): Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Marc Lemoine. I'm senior city clerk and senior election official with the City of Winnipeg. With me tonight is Sherwood Armbruster, who's our manager of elections. He's also the senior election official for many of the city's six school divisions.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this evening on Bill 25. Thank you as well for the process you are going through. I do understand how difficult it'd be to amend and modernize legislation such as election -related rules that affect all muni - cipalities with varying needs and varying sizes. So thank you for what you're doing for all Manitoba citizens.

As per our written submission, dated November 27th, 2020, we're here to speak strictly in regards to the changes to the elections process side of Bill 25, and also wish to note that we don't have any concerns with the legi slative changes that are being proposed in the bill. We do have a campaign expenses bylaw for candidates in the City of Winnipeg, as well as policies prohibiting the use of municipal resources by existing elected officials during elections. Incorporating those policies into our bylaw, as is contemplated by Bill 25, is something that we will be able to do for our 2022 election process.

We are here tonight to encourage you to consider expanding Bill 25 slightly to help modernize the election process in Manitoba in two specific areas. Sherwood? Mr. Sherwood Armbruster ( Private Citizen): The first area deals with the vote-by-mail process or voting by a sealed-envelope ballot that is referred to in The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act. And in speaking with other municipalities across Canada, many report that there's been a large increase in take-up of vote by mail since the pandemic, from a few hundred ballots coming in, in past elections, to many thousands in recent elections.

We do hope that the pandemic will be fully under control by October of 2022, and we also feel strongly that there will continue to be an increased desire by voters to use the vote-by-mail option. The current legislation restricts use of this option to those who ex pect to be away from a municipality on election day, along with a few other special cases. In the context of a pandemic, it can be expected that a significant number of voters will be unable to attend a polling station as they need to self-isolate or they may simply prefer, and reasonably prefer, to limit exposure by avoiding crowds and public places.

Citizen preferences in terms of public movement and interaction have shifted as a result of technology, a sign of change in the pandemic, and as such, we do believe that there will be demand for increased use of vote by mail well beyond the pandemic. As such, we respectfully request that as part of Bill 25, you amend

section 95 of The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act, and allow all voters to use the vote-by-sealed-envelope service, regardless of their reason. Mr. Lemoine: The second request we have tonight is in regards to the election day itself. The City of Winnipeg Charter currently states that election day will be the fourth Wednesday of October every fourth year. The No. 1 citizen concern we have raised in regard to elections is the concern for children's safety as a result of having elections in schools.

This includes the concern of having large numbers of citizens entering schools when children are present, as well as the concern of extra vehicle traffic created around schools by elections. As a result of these concerns, for the last several years, we've undertaken all by -elections of council and school trustees on Saturdays. Having by-elections on Saturdays relieves the fears mentioned because children are not present. As well, turnout is increased for by-elections held on Saturdays versus those held during the week, as citizens tend to have more time available.

Many citizens have a larger window of time available to them to vote, and this spreads out the flow of voting at election locations. Reduced lineups and swift voter processing makes for a more positive voter experience, and it is also easier to attract workers. The Province of Manitoba did also recognize some of these same concerns for children's safety and changed The Elections Act recently to ensure that classes could be cancelled in schools where provincial elections are taking place. Municipal elections on weekends are common in Canada, including in BC, where municipal elections

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 347 are on a third Saturday in October, and Quebec, where elections are on the first Sunday in November. When we have raised this issue in the past , the response has been that we should not use schools for elections at all. While we no longer use schools for elections if at all possible, it is difficult to eliminate the use of schools completely, as they are one of the few gathering places in some neighbourhoods. As such, we are respectfully reques ting that as part of Bill 25, you amend

section 19 of The City of Winnipeg Charter to change election day from the fourth Wednesday to either the fourth Saturday in October every four years or to a day specified by City of Winnipeg bylaw that is within sev en days of the fourth Wednesday in October. That concludes your presentation. Our great thanks for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. And we do welcome any questions. Mr. Chairperson: All right, thank you very much for your presentation. We'll move on to questions. Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Municipal Relations): Thank you very much for taking the time to come out today and present to us.

Yes, there's some ideas there with Saturday and Sunday. Other provinces do it, and that is a consideration, for sure. I would ask if you can, what other provinces? Are those the only two provinces that have weekend voting? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lemoine and Mr. Armbruster. Mr. Lemoine: Those are the two largest ones. Ontario and Alberta both take their municipal elections on Monday. When we've reached out to schools in the past about taking an in- service day, they said they would be open to considering that, should we get the election moved to either a Monday or a Friday.

But they were unable to do so on a Wednesday. So if the weekend was unavailable to be changed to as election day, certainly a Monday or a Friday would be better than a Wednesday. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions from members of the committee? Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Thank you very much, Mr. Lemoine and Mr. Armbruster, for your presentation here. I find this fascinating and an interesting proposal.

I know –I think all progressive parties across North America right now are looking at ways to engage people in voting and try to accommodate not only, as you said, this sort of new normal that we're in right now, but trying to anticipate where we might be. For you guys, I guess that's coming up sooner rather than later, so seems like this is a pretty pressing concern for you. My first question, I guess–I'm going to ask two in one, just, if I don't get any extra time here. My first question is just about the consultation process.

We do have The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act, you know, in front of us here, and it seems like a perfect opportunity to take advantage of the fact that we're trying to tweak this bill to make it more democratic. And yet, you know, I hear a pretty good couple suggestions from you guys. I'm wondering if you were consulted and whether you were able to share this information before we arrived at the committee here this evening. And my second question is just if you have any data on how those elections in those other provinces, how those–how that impacts voter turnout.

If it's on a Saturday, if it's on a Sunday, maybe you can just talk a little bit about some of the information that you've gathered. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lemoine and Mr. Armbruster. Mr. Lemoine: I thank you for the questions, sir. We did submit a written submission on November 27th, 2020, certainly, when we saw that the legislation was being proposed. So, did have the chance to submit that in writing at that point. I have not consulted with anyone there in regards to the actual bill today other than that.

In terms of a turnout, turnout varies quite a bit, even here in the city of Winnipeg, depending on what race is involved. Typically, if there's people like a new mayor or a new reeve being elected, turnout will tend to go up versus if an existing mayor or reeve is running again. So the turnout does tend to spread 'widesly.' In terms of our experience here at the City of Winnipeg, we have found and received a lot of good feedback from citizens indicating that Saturday elec- tions were a lot easier for people to attend.

Lots of different issues, right: the more time to attend, better parking availability, those type of things. * (18:40)

348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 In terms of other provinces, typically, as I say, the actual turnout varies up and down, so it's hard to tell. Vancouver is, for example, always on a Saturday. The same with Montreal, always on a Sunday. So, hard to compare. Sometimes they're high; sometimes they're low, and it does vary like that right across the country. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions? Mr. Wiebe: I do just have one more question with regards to

section 95 and just opening up the ability of people to vote by mail. Can you just talk about exactly what the rules stipulate right now in terms of the City of Winnipeg elections and maybe compare that to the Province? Because I know at the provincia l level, we've worked with our e lections folks to try to, you know, again, accommodate people and all the different ways that they want to participate in our demo cratic process. Can you just talk about those two processes? Like, what are the differences right now in terms of what the City of Winnipeg can do and the Province of Manitoba? Mr. Chairperson: Mr.

Lemoine and Mr. Armbruster, you have 20 seconds to respond. Mr. Armbruster: So the municipal council board of elections act,

section 95, my understanding is it's very similar to provincial legislation and to other juris - dictions in that voting is restricted to persons with a disability and persons that are away. So I would recommend the committee to look at all legislation in that regard. But we are here speaking specifically to sec - tion 95, and I think opening it up would provide – facilitate voting for a much larger number of our citi- zens and voters and make their voting e xperience much more positive. Mr. Chairperson: All right, thank you, Mr. Lemoine and Mr.

Armbruster, for your presentation this even- ing and also for taking the time to answer questions from members of the committee. Bill 38–The Building and Electrical Permitting Improvement Act (Various Acts Amended and Permit Dispute Resolution Act Enacted) Mr. Chairperson: We're now going to move to our next presenter and our next bill. As previously agreed, that would be Bill 38. And I'll call Larry [phonetic] McInnes from the Manitoba Home Builders' Association and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. My apologies. I am misreading my–I think I need my reading glasses here; it's Lanny McInnes.

I'd ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting and ask them to please unmute themselves and turn their video on. All right, Lanny, okay, I think I can see you. Sorry for butchering your name there earlier. You're wel - come to begin your presentation. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr. Lanny McInnes (Manitoba Home Builders' Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and hopefully you can hear me. Good evening, my name's Lanny McInnes. I'm the president and CEO of the Manitoba Home Builders' Association. The MHBA is a non- profit association representing M anitoba's residential con - struction industry.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you this evening regarding Bill 38. I'd like to begin by extending our thanks to Deputy Minister Gray and his departmental staff for our ongoing engagement regarding Bill 38 in the aspects of its eventual implementation. We really do appreciate the many opportunities that we've had to discuss the importance of this bill and, just as importantly, the steps needed to ensure its proper implementation. I'd als o like to extend our thanks to Mr. Joe Kasprick, a program manager, building codes, at Municipal Relations for the work that he's done with us on Bill 38.

The MHBA supports the provisions in

schedule A of Bill 38, establishing a dispute resolution mechan- ism regarding building and electrical permits. Inconsistent

interpretations have led to disputes between contractors and municipalities over proper code implementation, and this new mechanism will help address these types of situations. We fully

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 349 support this approach and we look forward to working with the department to develop and implement this mechanism. The MHBA also supports the provisions in

schedule C of Bill 38, moving Manitoba to having one province-wide electric code rather than two: one for Winnipeg and then one for the rest of the province. I would like to highlight for the committee one specific item in

schedule B of Bill 38 and that is clause 3(2.1), deemed adoption of new codes and standards. The MHBA supports the timely adoption of new a dditions of the national building code and electrical code. We continue to call for both the sufficient period of time for industry to review the national code changes, followed by a sufficient period of time post -adoption to prepare for the proper implementation of the newly adopted codes. Clause 3(2.1) provides a maximum of 24 months and then moves to a maximum of 18 months for the Province to review and adopt national code changes.

In our view, this is a sufficient window for the Province and industry to properly review code changes. Our recommendation is that this review period is followed by a minimum 12- month implementation period before the new code changes are fully imple - mented by the Province, and that allows industry to properly educate and properly prepare for the code implementation. This time is needed to educate contractors and trades people on the code changes and to adjust build- ing supply inventory that may be affected by the code changes.

The MHBA also continues to recommend that the Province of Manitoba adopt the 2015 National Building Code but maintain the current Manitoba amendments until a full review of the amendments has been completed. This review should be co -ordinated with the provincial review of the proposed 2020 National Building Code changes so that any changes to the Manitoba amendments will be timed with the Manitoba adoption and implementation of the 2020 NBC changes.

This recommendation will allow for a more effective review of Manitoba's amendments to take place while also providing industry with adequate time to plan for any changes that the elimination of any of the amendments may cause for residential construction. We agree with the Treasury Board Secretariat review's findings that the current Manitoba amend- ment should once again be reviewed and that the amendments should be minimized.

The review of the Manitoba amendments should be a proper and thorough review involving industry experts and it should be done prior to any changes to the current Manitoba amendments taking place. It is important to minimize any unintended conse- quences that may arise by eliminating amend ments without first properly examining the potential consequences. We look forward to participating in this review process and we, again, o ffer our technical experts to assist in this process as well.

Thank you for your time this evening, and we look forward to the passage of Bill 38 and working with government officials on its implementation. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. McInnes, for your presentation. We'll now move on to questions. Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Municipal Relations): Well, thank you for taking the time for coming out today. We appreciate that and your kind words that you're in support of this. I think a lot of the time is eaten up by red tape and different things.

Currently, can you maybe explain a little bit of the issues, if there's any that you experience, where people go from, say, the city of Winnipeg to rural, where there's City of Winnipeg electrical codes and then switching over to Manitoba Hydro electrical codes. There's not tons of difference, but I guess there's probably some concerns from the Manitoba Home Builders' Association. Can you just talk a few seconds on that? Mr. McInnes: Yes. Our main concern there would be any inconsistencies or kind of discrepancies in terms of

interpretation. Our members are, for the most part, used to this, but there are some cases where it can cause confusion. So we just feel that it would provide greater clarity and–on everyone's behalf to have one set of rules rather than two. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions?

350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Thank you to the presenter, to Mr. McInnes. This is important to hear your voice and the representation of your membership here at the committee this evening. I think it's infor - mative to all of us to understand some of the chal - lenges that your members have in terms of inter - preting the code, making sure that they're doing things correctly, and I appreciate the work that you do to help them to be compliant and to get the best results.

What I'm hearing from you here tonight, and maybe you can just correct me if I'm understanding this incorrectly, it sounds like there's still a lot of work that needs to be done with re gards to Bill 38, and it sounds like there's a lot of work that you're willing to step in and help the government to execute correctly.

I guess I just want to ask about the process so far and sort of help me understand what role, exactly, you think that your organization and others can help in shaping the next steps for government in order to make sure that Bill 38, as it's implemented, is imple - mented in the way that works best for your members. Mr. McInnes: Thank you very much for the question. Our organization works very closely with both the former Office of the Fire Commissioner, now part of the Municipal Relations Department, along with the City of Winnipeg on code issues through our Technical Research Committee, and Mr.

Kasprick from the department sits as a member of our Technical Research Committee, so we're in close and very frequent contact on any code issues, and when there are discrepancies in terms of

interpretation, we do utilize that network to bring those questions forward and try a nd get clarity from the department on Manitoba code

interpretation. * (18:50) Our Technical Research Committee provides the building science experts on the residential con- struction side of the industry, together as a group, to deal with building -science issues, code -compliance issues and reviewing of code changes, and it's a ready- made group that we've offered to work with the Province to view these things through that residential construction lens and provide our expertise and feedback. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions? Mr.

Wiebe: So then, just in terms of the timing –I think that you had mentioned some concerns about that–can you just lay out specifically what you're hoping when it comes to the timing on this particular bill and some of the issues you foresee there? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. McInnes, you've got about 45 seconds. Mr. McInnes: What we're asking for is an imple - mentation period of –to follow the adoption of the code changes. So, Manitoba's reviewed the code changes, the Province –provincial g overnment has adopted them.

What we're asking is for a time period –we think 12 months is reasonable –before they're fully imple - mented so that industry can prepare, make any adjust- ments or changes that they need to make and make sure contractors are edu cated to implement them, ready when they're full–you know, fully adopted and ready to be implemented by the Province. Mr. Chairperson: All right, that takes us to the end of the time for this particular presenter. I thank you very much, Mr. McInnes, for y our presentation and for the time that you took to make it and to also answer questions from members of the committee this evening.

We'll now call the next presenter, but first I have a written submission that we received on Bill 38. It's from Darryl Harrelson [phonetic], of–Harrison, of the Winnipeg Construction Association. It is the–is it the will of the committee to have also this presentation appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Bill 53–The Municipal Statutes Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Chairperson: So continuing on, we'll now go to Bill 53 and the presenters there. So I will call on Norman Rosenbaum and ask the moderator to invite him into the meeting. It appears that Mr. Rosenbaum is not with us this evening, so we'll move to the next presenter. I'll call on Dorothy Kleiber, and ask them to be invited into the meeting. And I should note that Mr. Norman Rosensbaum's [phonetic] name will be dropped to the end of the list of presenters. So, Dorothy Kleiber, I can see you now, and thank you very much for coming out this evening. You have up to 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Go ahead. Ms. Dorothy Kleiber (Private Citizen): Good evening, members of the committee. I'm here today to speak about changes for Bill 53, and specifically

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 351

section 84.1.4 of The Municipal Act, which relates to voting for sanctions on the code of conduct legislation which was implemented November 1st, 2020. Before I continue on, I will say that I am repre - senting myself, and I am not representing any muni - cipality. I am not in favour of the change that councils with members fewer than seven should pass sanctions with only a majority vote.

Section 84.1.4, as it is currently written, is a safeguard for those that constitute a min- ority on councils and protects them from bullying of the majority. Current legislation calls for majority plus one for sanctions. Let me explain to you why this is so important. The intent of the legislation of the code of conduct is to promote appropriate behaviour and to encourage reconciliation and co- operation among members of council.

Even if inappropriate behaviour takes place, legislation was meant to informally ad - dress issues and to mediate issues before unreconciled differences are moved to the investigative stage and possible sanctions. This would seem to be a reasonable process, but that is not what always happens when the process is not followed, and councils are regularly split in their voting, such as 3-2. Then the code of conduct can be weaponized by the majority against the minority on council.

Here are some problems with the process that relates to the vote for sanctions; and first let me explain, if you're not familiar with the current process, which follows the flowchart of the complaint. So this is the actual complaint process currently: if a councilor feels that another councilor has contra - vened the code, he or she must first seek informal resolution with the person they have –they feel has contravened the code. If the person is not receptive, then a complaint may be filed with the CAO. The complaint must be within 30 days of the violation unless it's–sexual harassment takes place.

Then it is sent to a third party intake reviewer; the reviewer sends a report back to the council with a recommenda- tion of dismissal or acceptance of the complaint. Even if the recommendation is dismissal, council can vote that the complaint be moved to mediation. Additionally, if the complaint is accepted, it also moves to mediation. If one party refuses mediation, it then moves to investigation. At this stage, the com - plainant and the respondent are to jointly choose an investigator, and if they cannot agree on an invest - igator, then the CAO may choose an investigator.

Once the investigation is complete, outcomes of the investigation are voted on by council. Throughout this entire process, any votes by council are passed by the majority. You can see that the process is geared towards to the majority on council. Let me talk about the inherent problems of this process and the necessity to maintain the vote as majority plus one. Assume the person who is –who has a complaint filed against them is in the minority on council.

While informal resolution must be sought at the beginning of the complaint, a CAO can accept the complaint and send it to the intake reviewer without informal resolu- tion, even though this is not proper process. The com- plaint is sent to the intake reviewer and is returned to council to be dismissed because of la ck of informal resolution. However, a majority on council can vote for the process to continue, despite the fact that the first step has not been followed. There is nothing that the respondent can do in this regard if they are not part of the majority.

Next, the complaint moves to mediation to try and resolve problems. If the complainant or the respon- dent refuse to mediate, the complaint moves to in- vestigation–even if one party is willing, mediation is not considered. However, if the complainant seeks to be punitive and not be in a spirit of reconciliation, they will try to bypass mediation. In the next step, the complainant and respondent must jointly choose the investigator. If the CAO is unbiased they should be asking both parties for the requests.

However, if the one party refuses mediation, it leaves the CAO–who may or may not be unbiased– to choose an investigator. This is also problematic. What should happen is if the two parties cannot agree, a third unbiased party that is at arm's-length from the municipality should choose an investigator, rather than the CAO–someone like an intake reviewer. This allows an unbiased decision and allows the CAO to be free of allegations of bias. Investigations can also be biased if the investi - gator relies on m anagement for information.

For example, if the investigator constantly refers to the CAO or staff for information and if the CAO or staff are biased, then the outcome will also be biased. The investigator should rely on the information they are given and balance their approach to witnesses. They

352 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 should interview witnesses from both sides of the complaint. Nevertheless, once the investigation is complete, if the investigation finds the respondent has not contravened the code, no sanctions can be imposed. Conversely, if the investigation finds that respondent has contravened the code, sanctions may be–may take place.

Here's the problem: if proper process has not been followed, if there is reliance on staff who may be biased sources of information, if the c omplainant refuses to speak to the respondent or go to mediation and if the investigator relies on biased staff for information instead of looking at the evidence and a balanced approach to witnesses, then an improper and biased outcome has taken place. * (19:00) Therefore, the only safeguard a minority member on council has is the vote of majority plus one.

If the Province wishes to be fair and provide proper justice for bullying, changes in the code of conduct process must take place. I would like to point out some things that would benefit all municipalities. Before a complaint is sent to an intake reviewer, the complainant must have informal resolution, as has been recommended and legislated. If the CAO does not follow the requirement, the intake reviewer should not even review the complaint without the step being completed. It should be sent back. If the complaint is dismissed by an intake review- er, the complaint should end. There should be no vote by council.

The report should be accepted, the com- plaint dismissed. Reviewer is objective. Council may not be objective. Mediation, other than sexual harassment, should be mandatory. At least an attempt should be made for reconciliation. If one party is willing to meet, then an attempt to mediate should be made. This can save an RM thousands of dollars. When choosing an investigator, both parties should email the CAO and, if they do not agree, a third party at arm's-length from the RM, such as an intake reviewer, should choose the investigator. This allows an unbiased decision.

(5) Investigators should not rely on staff or biased information. They should review the information pro- vided by the complainant and the respondent. If in- vestigators wish to speak to witnesses, they should speak to all witnesses, not just the complainant's witnesses or just the respondent's witnesses.

(6) Upon completion of an investigation, every effort should be made to protect the privacy of both complainant and respondent. Municipalities should not broadcast details of the letters from intake reviewers or details of an investigation. If RM s have a resolution to sanction, it should be simple or without detail. The vote should be taken and that should be the end of the matter. Announcements on the RM website, emails to residents, articles in the local newspaper do not help promote a positive working environment and only add to the existing conflict on councils.

If there are issues to remedy within council, they should be kept within council. The code of conduct was not meant to be punitive or to be weaponized by the majority on councils. It was meant to reconcile differences and have councils work together for the good of the people they represent. When good people make up the majority, then there is the potential that rules are followed and the code of conduct has a chance of working properly. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Kleiber, just a note there, you've got about 15 seconds left in your time. Ms.

Kleiber: However, when people use the code of conduct to attack others for a political agenda, then it does not work. It becomes a punitive process and the majority seeks to punish the minority. I, along with other councillors who are in the min- ority in small rural municipalities are not in favour of the change that council members with fewer than seven should pass sanctions with only a majority vote.

Section 84.1.4, as is currently written, acts as a safe - guard for us and should remain as such. I thank you for the opportunity to present my views to the committee. Mr. Chairperson: All right, thank you, Ms. Kleiber, for your presentation. We'll now move right into questions. Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Municipal Relations): Yes, we definitely recognize that every - body, wherever they work, deserves both a respectful workplace and–as well as procedural fairness, I sup - pose, during any resolution process. So, you brought forward some good points for some consideration, and

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 353 thank you for taking the time to come out and present tonight. We appreciate and value your input. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Kleiber, any response to the minister? Ms. Kleiber: No, I thank you for the time to do so and I hope that you consider my –the validity and the points of my presentation. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions? Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Ms. Kleiber, thank you so much for being here this evening and partici - pating in the committee. I take your points very seriously.

It was certainly– have heard from a lot of different municipalities across the province and there have been –certainly been issues, as you've identified, and I've heard from them about those. I think you've outlined your concerns very well and I do think that you're very passionate about that local democratic tradition. So, I appreciate that. I think that's what we're going to be talking about a lot here this evening, is respecting those folks put their names forward on ballots across this province and look to serve their communities. It sounds like you've done that well.

So thank you very much for participating here tonight. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Kleiber, a response to the member? Ms. Kleiber: I would say to the member thank you. I would also say that you will see a decrease of people running for council if the majority plus one is re - moved, because there's just no safeguard for people that are a minority on council. So, if we want people to run that are good people on council and balance council views, we need to keep this in place. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Any further questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, Ms.

Kleiber, I will thank you ver y much, on behalf of the committee, for the time you took to make your presentation this evening and for answering some of the questions from our committee members and interacting with them. Bill 37–The Planning Amendment and City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act (Continued) Mr. Chairperson: We'll now move on to the next presenter, which is getting back to Bill 37, and our first presenter there is Kam Blight from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. I'll now call on Kam and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting, and I'll ask Mr.

Blight to unmute himself and turn his video on. A note for those of you who may have a copy of the presenter list, that there's a typographical error in his name. It should be spelled with a C –C-A-M– [interjection] Oh, sorry; it should be spelled with a K–I have it correct. In some of them it was spelled with a C, and it's supposed to be spelled with a K, and I apologize for my misunderstanding there. So, I'm assured that it has all been fixed up and it is correctly spelled now with the K. So you can now proceed, Mr. Blight, with your presentation. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr.

Kam Blight ( Association of Manitoba Municipalities): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good eve - ning, everyone. On behalf of the Associat ion of Manitoba Municipalities I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present municipal priorities related to Bill 37. My presentation tonight will discuss our concerns related to this proposed legislation, as well as outline possible amendments to provide greater reassurance and clarity for our members. To be absolutely clear, we do have some funda - mental concerns about this bill, but before I get to them, I want to put these concerns in a larger context.

Manitoba municipalities are achieving landmark levels of growth. In fact, municipalities outside of Winnipeg contribute a full 35 per cent to Manitoba's total GDP, while boasting some of the fastest growing communities in Canada, as they've attracted large multinational developments and some of the largest residential growth in decades. Thus, municipalities help fuel Manitoba's econ- omy. We are partners in growth, and we know that the province already understands that. Manitoba munici - palities are doing great work in approving pri vate investments.

The province said so right in the Throne Speech, where the government rightly took some

354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 credit for delivering the fastest rate of growth in pri - vate capital investment in Canada. But the right thing to do there is to share the credit, because local councils were on the front lines when it comes to approving major capital investments here in Manitoba. For the most part, we've been saying yes to major investments. We've been saying yes to major growth projects, and we've been saying yes to major residen- tial developments when and where it makes sense to do so. That is why this has been a difficult process for us.

Around the average local council table here in Manitoba, there's years or even decades of experience at balancing employment and industry, infrastructure, the environment, taxes and fees and other local prior- ities. Yet, our association and our member munici - palities were not consulted by the original task force that led to bill 48, Bill 37's predecessor. Prior to introductio n of this legislation, we saw very little in the way of input from participants who would understand first-hand how it would play out in local communities.

So, if it seems like the AMM is making last-minutes proposals to improve this legis - lation, it's because we are. We're trying to make up for lost time. With that said, after Bill 37 was introduced, engagement with our association has increased, which we welcomed. We have also appreciated the oppor - tunity to participate in the multi -stakeholder Bill 37 working group to bring forward and discuss municipal concerns. We wish to thank Minister Johnson for kick-starting this working group and supporting this initiative. * (19:10) We acknowledge Bill 37 does include some posi- tive changes from bill 48.

For example, the bill now includes a mandatory three -year review. That's posi - tive. Municipalities now have a right to be consulted by the Minister of Municipal Relations before the creation of any additional regional planning regions. That's positive. Howev er, there is still the risk of municipalities being forced into regions in the end. While the proposed timelines to file an appeal are still slower than in any other province with a similar framework, there are at least some clear timelines for the Municipal Board to process an appeal.

However, significant risks remain and, in fact, all we have to do is look across our border to see how these risks may impact Manitobans if left unaddressed. In Ontario, for instance, the government initially made appeals too easy and appeal boards too power - ful, which lead to a massive backlog, with delays of 18 months or even two years to get to a hearing. At one point, the backlog reached 1,000 cases. Again, I repeat: 1,000 cases. The backlog has decreased some- what, but it remains to this day.

Overall, waiting years for an appeal to run its course isn't streamlining development approvals, it's adding red tape and uncertainty. Giving applicants of developments the right to appeal without even re - quiring them to explain their grounds for appeal isn't streamlining development approvals, it encourages the fast-tracking of an appeal to circumvent local deci- sions made by democratically elected local councils. And giving the Municipal Board the power to override local decisio ns undermines the authority and auto- nomy of municipal officials.

So you can see why we are worried, but we're trying to be as constructive as we can in addressing these worries. That's why we are proposing specific amendments to Bill 37 to at least include some of the basic standards we see in other provincial planning statutes. I'm talking about standards that are designed to try to keep the process speedy, fair and, most of all, democratically respectful.

Our six amendments would: (1) require anyone filing an appeal to state their reason for appealing in the filing; (2) limit permissible grounds for appeal to be consistent with laws in other provinces; (3) limit appeals to those already engaged in the process; (4) limit the scope of appealed decisions s o that the Municipal Board could not become a new level of government by writing its own laws or imposing new costs on taxpayers; (5) further reduce appeal timelines to come into line with other provincial standards; and (6) impose accountability measures on the Manitoba Municipal Board in the event that delays in hearing or closing appeals cause a backlog.

All six of these features are present in other provincial planning appeal statutes, but not in Manitoba's Bill 37. In Alberta and Ontario, you're re quired to state why you are appealing right in your notice of appeal. In Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Alberta, there are specific limits to why you can appeal. In Ontario, you can't appeal unless you've already been a part of the process. In Sas katchewan and Alberta,

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 355 appeal boards are limited in how much they can 'rewite'–rewrite the law. Nova Scotia even specifies that appeal boards can't impose costs onto taxpayers to support a development –and rightfully so, since councils are supposed to be guarding the public purse. These examples illustrate the need for clear para- meters in the bill to guide the appeals process so appeals are a last resort, not the first step. Every other province that has specific guidelines on when appeals can happen has faster timelines than we do.

So if our goal is to reduce red tape, why can't we reduce the timelines for appeals as well? Additionally, Bill 37 states that each member municipality will have at least one representative on the capital regional planning board. It is essential that municipalities retain the sole authority to appoint in - dividuals, including elected officials, at their dis - cretion to serve on this board. We've heard from the beginning the argument that bills 48 and 37 were simply a matter of copying best practices from other provinces.

All we're asking your committee to do is to be consistent with that claim and add in the safeguards we see in other appeal laws in other provinces. We don't want to be right about the risk that a backlog of appeals locks up critical developments in this province. But if we are right, and Ontario's exper- ience suggests we could be, then the opportunity to fix that is right in front of us. Manitobans shouldn't have to potentially wait for a three -year review do wn the road when the provincial government could take steps now to mitigate this unnecessary risk.

We respectfully hope that copying safeguards from legislation in other provinces can make it easier for you to take that opportunity while we can. In closing, the AMM wishes to thank the Minister of Municipal Relations once again for making amendments to the first bill to help address several significant concerns on the regional -planning side, and we wish to thank all MLAs and legislative staff for your time as we all live and work through these challenging times. Do you have any questions for me? I'll be more than happy to try and answer them. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr.

Blight, for your presentation. We'll go straight into questions. Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Municipal Relations): You suggested that 35 per cent of our GDP is outside, rurally–outside the city–and I thought it would be more than that, but I'll trust your stats on that. But our GDP would increase $17 million every day with getting some of this regulation out of the way and allow businesses to grow. Municipal tax base would increase by $400,000 every day, and provincial revenues, of course would also go up if everything else goes up, and that's about $1.7 million per day.

So I understand your concerns with the Municipal Board, and we're scheduled to clear that backlog that we inherited about –by the next assessment cycle. And I think we closed, if my numbers are right here, 73 per cent of its outstanding appeals. That's 1,790 appeals that we've closed. About five years ago there was about an eight -year wait for an appeal. So we're closing that gap quite quickly. So, you know, some of your suggestions, great suggestions; they could be considered in the re gula- tions, as well as amendments here tonight. So you brought up some reducing timelines on appeal.

Would you care to make any suggestions on a timeline that you think would be adequate? Mr. Blight: You know, ultimately, we would like to see the decisio ns remain with the elected officials from the municipalities. You know, these are officials that are being held accountable by their citizens every four years, that elected them, ultimately, and we feel that these decisions should still be ultimately made by those elected officials. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions? Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and also to you, Mr. Blight.

Appreciate the commentary that you're making about the decision- making resting with the duly elected officials. And I know you've probably been talking to many duly elected officials in this whole process of engaging with the AMM member - ship. And I also wanted to acknowledge the proposed amendments that you brought forward here today. I'm just wondering, could you maybe talk a bit about that engagement process and how it fed into the amendments that you're recommending here? Is it something that you came up with, like, at an executive table? Is this something you've been doing at your regional meetings?

If you can just help shine some

356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 light as to, you know, I guess, how grassroots are some of these proposals coming from? Mr. Blight: Thank you very much for the question. When AMM was, you know, given the oppor - tunity to bring forward some of the concerns that they had with the proposed legislation, our staff was on top of it immediately and did a phenomenal job of doing their research, doing their homework and questioning some of the information that was being presented to them.

It didn't ta ke them long to look outside of our jurisdiction to look at best practices as to, you know, what has other jurisdictions done, so that we don't make the same mistakes as other jurisdictions. * (19:20) The CAO was across the province of Manitoba, put toge ther an excellent working document which spoke about some of the issues and the challenges of bill 48 and Bill 37. And that was brought forward for councils and staff and, you know, different members to study and understand. And so that just brought forward more questions.

As we tour –every year, our AMM, we tour –the executive tours the province of Manitoba and the dif- ferent municipalities. Already this year, I've toured and met with 50 different municipalities. And at basi- cally every single meeting we have, Bill 37 comes up, and concerns with loss of local autonomy is there. This is one of the single biggest issues that gets raised at every single municipal visit, and it happened last year when the executive toured the province as well. You know, I have to give full credit to our staff, who's worked very hard.

You know, probably half of their time has been spent working on this bill and had– you know, they have had a good working relationship with the provincial government staff, bringing for - ward some of our concerns. We've had the opportunity to meet with the minister and the minister previous to Minister Johnson. And we've had some great dis - cussions, but, you know, we just feel that, you know, we just have to give it our every effort in trying to get our last word in to–hopefully, we can see some changes and some final amendments here. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Further questions? We only have 15 seconds. Mr.

Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Then maybe I'll just keep it very brief, to thank you, Mr. Blight, for all the work that you've done. Of course, you know as an opposition this was one of the bills that we held up from the last session. As you said, it was bill 48. And we –you know, I'm happy that we were able to give you the time to do the work to reach out to those grassroots. I take your point about appeals. I think there's a big concern there. The minister's talking about clear - ing out a backlog five years later, and yet now we're talking about exponential amount more responsibility and potential for backlogs.

So, thank you for your work and we look forward to keeping this dialogue going. Mr. Chairperson: All right. That was a fair bit more than 15 seconds, so unfortunately, no chance for a response, but I do thank you, Mr. Blight, for your time this evening, for coming out, making the presentation and for your continued work also with the govern- ment. Now we'll move to the next presenter, and I'll call on Stephen Kupfer and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Stephen Kupfer, I'll ask that you unmute yourself and turn your video on.

Stephen Kupfer, if you can unmute yourself and turn your video on–we don't quite see you yet. Floor Comment: How's that? That working? Mr. Chairperson: All right. I can hear you, but I don't see your video. I just see your name. So if it's possible to turn on your video, that would be appreciated. Floor Comment: Yes. I– Mr. Chairperson: It's usually in the bottom corner there of your screen. Bottom-left normally. Looks like a little video–there you are. All right. Excellent. I see you, Stephen Kupfer. Welcome to the meeting. You have up to 10 minutes. Go ahead and start your presentation. Mr.

Stephen Kupfer (5008735 Manitoba Ltd.): Before I start, I just want to comment briefly on the last presenter. I understand that the association for Manitoba municipalities, they have to talk their book there of what they want to see, but taking away the decisions from the local authorities and this idea of taking away some local autonomy, I mean, it is the fundamental reason why this bill has to happen. And I'll just tell you my own story and my experience, and you can see why I have that opinion.

So I want to address the –Bill 37, specifically the provisions and the ability for an applicant, the way I understand it, to appeal a development agreement.

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 357 And the way I read this bill, it says that the municipality has to produce a development agreement within 90 days, and also that there are some grounds under which you can appeal your actual development agreement. So, the terms and conditions in that, and I would suggest that that has to be as broad as possible because the municipalities do not use a standard development agreement and they change the terms all the time–terms and conditions. So, I'll just give you a little bit of background quickly on our story, our development here.

We signed the development agreement in March of 2013 with the RM of West St. Paul, and our main parcel of property is from Main Street to the Red River. And just for perspective, we border the Shooters golf course on one side, so we're technically about 100 metres outside the northern city boundary on Main Street, so we're well inside the Perimeter, and, in fact, you wouldn't even know it was the RM of West St. Paul, because there's continuous develop- ment there.

Anyway, our river portion was zoned multi - family, and when we signed this development agreement, we did not have our river portion design concept for it. So, the front part of our property we were going to develop and this back part, which was zoned multi -family, we were going to develop at a later date.

And so within this development agreement there was a clause that said we needed to provide and if – just bear with me, I'll just read this–a detailed plan of development showing all structures to be constructed, including the number of dwelling units; how drainage, landscaping, protection of existing tr ees and vegeta - tion, traffic flow including internal roadways, connec- tion to a sewer system and water supply and flood - proofing are being dealt with, and–all of which must be to the satisfaction of the municipality.

The munici- pality and the developer will enter into a supplemental development agreement dealing with all of the above. So it's fairly straightforward that this is, you know, a development. You would do a site plan and an elevation and then you'd have your engineers do a servicing trial. So there's nothing unusual in what this is; this would be done within a couple months of when we're ready to proceed.

So what happened here was this original develop- ment agreement we signed covered all the infra- structure we needed for our development, so all of the roads, the curbs and gutters, the sewer, the water, everything was covered under our development agree- ment. And, in fact, we brought all the servicing to this multi-family site, even though we weren't ready to develop it yet; we stubbed everything to this property because we were going to develop it in the future.

So, to be clear, we have a parcel here that's al - ready zoned multi-family, it's serviced, everything is stubbed to the site, it's just bare land sitting there, and we want–and it's zoned multi-family and it's zoned for 179 units. And so we had everything ready to go and everything is done sort of ahead of time so that when we wanted to develop it, we just needed to meet these conditions of a supplemental development agreement. So, in 2014, we decided we were going to do a townhouse development, and we had to get a subdivi- sion approved; we had to get a supplemental develop- ment agreement done.

This whole process took about two years. And it went fine, I guess. At the end of a tw o-year–so now we're in about March 2016 and we had a development agreement ready to sign, and we've been billed about $11,000 to date for the RM's cost for creating this development agreement. And the market had changed. There were some things in the devel opment agreement we didn't like that created a lot of risk for us to proceed with the project, so we decided we were going to walk away from that concept and let it lapse –because the sub - division approval has a time limit and then it lapses.

So we said, well, we're just going to lapse and we'll do something different. So that was in –so that was basically five years ago. So the point I want to make here is that since that date, we have not been able to get a supplemental development agreement from the RM o f West St. Paul. In five years, they have not been able to provide us a development agreement –five years – because we changed the concept. So we went to a concept that was already approved; it's already allowed for in the zoning, and that's an apartment b uilding. We said, why don't we just do an apartment building?

We don't need any variances, we don't need any subdivision; we'll just design it–that meets all the zoning requirements. We presented it to the RM, and in five years they have not produced a development agreement and we've been billed $50,000 in legal fees from the RM, $50,000 in legal fees. So we have no development agreement, we have giant legal bills that we paid, and they still cannot produce a development agreement for us, even though we had one five years ago that was

358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 ready to sign; it just needed to be modified for a new design. * (19:30) So that gets to the point about having a timeline and some independence here –somebody outside of the RM who says, hey, you guys need to produce this development agreement. But then I also want to talk about that the develop- ment agreement, you have to be able to have some independent review process if you get a development agreement that's not fair.

And what happens here is there's no–there's a process in the RM now where you can–an independent person can request copies of development agreements. So, we've got eight, nine, 10 development agree- ments up–have been done in the RM, so we know what clauses they give other developers. And the draft development agreement we've given is –we've been given by them is significantly more onerous and more punitive than what they give to everybody else. We haven't–and there's no appeal mechanism.

So I want to say this and I want to make this clear, is that the RM–and the first speaker talked about local autonomy and things like that –the RM is the judge, jury and executioner here in this process. And let me just give you an example here. So, with respect to development fees, in most of these developments–large developments–the RM offers to other developers and says, pay your fees, pay 50 per cent of your fees when you get a building per- mit and pay 50 per cent when you get an occupancy permit. So that seems fairly reasonable.

And in our development agreement it says, pay 100 per cent of the fees when you sign the development agreement. So, in our case, when–if we sign a development agreement, we have to write a cheque for $1 million up front and our building is going to take two years plus to build, so that the terms are substantially more beneficial to somebody else. And it's not unusual, because we've seen a whole bunch of development agreements, but they've just decided to make us suffer, I guess–I don't know why, but to suffer. Let me give you another example.

We went through a draft development agreement they gave us with our lawyer and we pointed out 13 things – significant things –that were inconsistent with other development agreements that they're writing with other developers. And their response to our 13 things was no to everything. So everything we pointed out and said, you know, here's three development agree - ments you just signed, and here's what you put in those ones, and here's the same clause and here's how you've changed it and make our agreement and our clause significantly more adverse than you're giving other developers. Mr. Chairperson: Mr.

Kupfer, just a note, you've got about 30 seconds remaining. Mr. Kupfer: Okay. I just want to point out one final thing in this development agreement. There's also a clause in there that says, oh, and if you sign this, you're agreeing to indemnify the RM for any actions they might have taken in giving–in leading up to this development agreement. So they can abuse you for five years and then the only way you can get this development signed is if you give them an indemnification that you have no recourse against them.

So, for all of those reasons, I am suggesting that Bill 37 has to have some teeth in it that takes away the ability for the RMs to abuse property owners. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Kupfer for your presentation. We're going to go into questions, if that's okay? We've got five minutes for questions yet. Mr. Johnson: Yes, well thank you for taking the time to come out and present tonight. It sounds like you spent your share of time on not just meetings like this but other meetings with municipalities trying to move your business plans forward.

And it sounds like you've had your share of trouble, as well, and we kind of believe that the standardization will help with industry moving forward. Bill 37, you know, I feel–we feel as government, is going to be the foundation of Manitoba moving forward, and the proposed legislation, it will improve efficiency, transparency and acco untability of plan - ning, while also enhancing opportunities for economic growth in communities across the the province. You didn't quite have enough time to finish your story there.

Go ahead, and I don't really have a ques - tion, but go ahead and maybe just finish it off there in the few moments that we have left. Mr. Kupfer: Yes, I just wanted to mention, earlier you talked about the economic effect of some of the delays, I think, in the Treasury Board analysis. Our project, when complete, is probably $40 million, something of that magnitude. And we've been–and

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 359 we've pointed out the tax effect and all these things to the RM, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. This project, already zoned and ready to go, has been stalled for year after year. And I think if I could find a reason, I would say because the local politicians don't want the political backlash from residents, not, you know–this is NIMBYism. This is NIMBYism at its finest, where local residents complain about some- thing, and so the politicians don't want to deal with it. And it's unfortunate, because we have all the zoning and all the property rights to do it.

And we have to go through the RM, and the RM can block us, well, I guess, forever. So, thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions? Mr. Wiebe: Well, thank you, Mr. Kupfer, for joining us here this evening. I appreciate your perspective as a developer. I think it's important to hear your voice here and understand some of the frustrations you've had. And it certainly sounds like you've had some pretty significant frustrations. You know, I can only imagine the amount of work that you've done to try to get this moving forward.

And again, I've heard your concerns and your frustra- tions here this evening. I guess some of the concerns that we have with Bill 37 is that there is an increased onus on munici - palities to, you know, to do more paperwork, to go through more red tape. And I guess I'm hearing from you that you actually want to get rid of that red tape. You want things to move more quickly and more efficiently. The other concern, of course, we have is that Bill 37 has no additional funding behind it. It doesn't actually, you know, give the Municipal Board any additional resources or funding.

It doesn't actually help address some of the concerns that I think you're bringing forward here. What I will say, though, is, you know, on the local representation front, I'm sitting here at committee and I've got your MLA right across the table from me. He's been listening in intently. I'm watching him following along the committee. And I think he's heard your con- cerns loud and clear.

So I hope that you take the opportunity to follow up with him, if you haven't already, and take some time to make sure that he's understanding your con- cerns, and make sure that he's able to fight for you, because, really, that's what we're talking about here with Bill 37 is having that representation. And we feel that this bill does not do that. So thanks for your time. I really appreciate you joining us this evening. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Kupfer, any response to Mr. Wiebe? Mr. Kupfer: Well, thank you. I appreciate that.

I would say that every avenue we have tried–and we've tried them all that we can think of –nobody has the ability to compel the RM to do anything, and that's a flaw in the system. The flaw is the –everybody–you know, we've talked to the Ombudsman, we've talked to this, we've talked to that. We've talked to Municipal Affairs many times, and all people can say is that, well, they can encourage the RM to do something, but at the end it's the RM's decision.

And that's why I'm hoping Bill 37 takes some of that d ecision-making away to an independent body that can actually look at this and go, hey, this isn't right, and we need to change this. So thank you again, and I hope it does pass. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Kupfer. That's all the time we have for questions for you. We're going to move right on to our next presenter. So I will call Marc Pittet from the City of Winnipeg Public Service and ask the moderator to invite them into the meeting. Marc Pittet, I ask that you unmute yourself and turn your video on.

Okay, I believe I can see you know. You have – you can go ahead with your presentation. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr. Marc Pittet ( Private Citizen ): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for providing me with the opportunity to speak to Bill 37. My name is Marc Pittet. It's a Swiss name; tough, Mr. Chair, to pronounce.

I'm the manager of real estate and land development at the City of Winnipeg and I'm here today representing our public service. * (19:40) It's my hope that all members of the committee are aware that on March 25th of this year, Winnipeg City Council, by a vote of 14-2, established a number of positions on the major elements of Bill 37. If not,

360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 I can certainly provide a link to the C lerk–to the minutes as to what was approved as integral to the dis- cussion this evening as you deliberate the contents of this bill. With only 10 minutes allotted for me to present, I'll try not to focus on items t hat I know will be addressed by other presenters and His Worship Mayor Brian Bowman. As the committee is aware, Bill 37– formerly bill 48 –was one of the byproducts of the planning, zoning and permitting, PZP, recommen - dations, as published in the June 11th, 2019 report from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Recommendation 1 in the PZP report has led to the capital planning region being established by Bill 37. I will limit my comments on this, as I anti - cipate that a number of individuals and members of municipalities will speak to similar concerns, but in short, the City of Winnipeg is concerned that there are many unknowns, inasmuch as many of the details, including costs to the City, composition and mandate of the board, and whether or not there will be weighted voting are not explicitly laid out in the bill and will only be detailed in subsequent regulations.

With that said, I'd like to acknowledge Colleen Sklar at the WMR and her staff and consultants who have worked closely with our urban planning staff to ensure alignment between our development plan, which is better known as OurWinnipeg, which was recently tabled, and the draft Capital Region plan, also recently tabled. Moving on, recommendation 2: the PZP report recommended that a quasi-judicial tribunal be created or the mandate of the Municipal Board be broadened and enhanced to allow it to hear a wide range of planning, zoning and permitting appeals across the province.

The report also stated that the tribunal should be staffed by independent professionals, follow the best practices of a jurisdictional scan and operate on a cost-recovery basis funded through costs assessed against the unsuccessful party. This bill takes this recommendation much further. It also creates inequity, with only the applicants or owners being afforded the oppor tunity to appeal to the Municipal Board in certain circumstances. The appeal mechanism that will be established is modelled on a much-maligned former Ontario munic- ipal board model, or the OMB.

The OMB model was universally criticized by municipalities and the public, and was ultimately replaced by the land planning advisory tribunal in 2017. When evaluating best practices for an appeal model, the province should have looked to lessons learned in Ontario, not simply mirroring a failed model. Kam from the AMM touched on this in his presentation, and the AMM has provided–or, prepared, sorry, a

summary of best practices and the shortcomings of the OMB and has presented the same on a number of occasions. I hope the committee has had the opportunity to review this important work. On May 29th, 2020, when considering a report I'd written, Winnipeg City Council recommended that the Province in Manitoba consider amendments to the former bill 48 to (

a) provide criteria for the Municipal Board to consider in adjudicating appeals, including whether an application is in compliance or non- compliance with local plans, policies and bylaws; and (

b) maintaining the role and autonomy of local governments by providing them with an opportunity to revisit and make new decisions on land use applications based on the findings and–the Municipal Board made following an appeal. Neither of these council recommendations were addressed in Bill 37. Another concern for the City of Winnipeg is t he potential costs arising from appeals and how the Municipal Board will define reasonable costs under

section 282.2(4). As written, the bill only provides for the board to make an order requiring the City of Winnipeg to pay some or all of the costs in an appeal with respect to failing to proceed. The direction provided in the PZP report specifically stated that costs should be assigned to the unsuccessful party, regardless of whom they may be, and that is not reflected in this bill. I've also shared conc erns with provincial staff with respect to the existing Municipal Board being historically underresourced.

Provincial staff have advised that the Municipal Board will employ a case management approach and that frivolous appeals will be dealt with quickly, but the legislation as written does not provide for this. I will also note for the committee that hearings for two objections to amend- ments to the airport vicinity protection area that were referred to the Municipal Board for adjudication a year ago have yet to be convened.

With all that said, as a member of the recently established Bill 37 working group, I've had the oppor- tunity to hear a presentation from and gotten to know Diane Stasiuk, the vice-chair of the Municipal Board. If the balance of the Municipal Board is as dedicated and knowledgeable as Ms. Stasiuk, this will –does alleviate some of my concerns, but it is imperative that the province provides her and her fellow board

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 361 members with the resources required to deal with what may be a significant increase in appeal hearings generated throughout the province. Recommendation 3 in the PZP report was a direc- tion to enact legislation to establish service standards for all levels of permitting and zoning applica tions across the province. New prescribed timelines for the processing of development applications are being established by Bill 37. In my position at the City, I am intimately aware of the concerns raised by developers who I interact with daily in our city.

It is baffling to me that in 2019, when the Treasury Board Secretariat was undertaking the PZP review, two of the major concerns with respect to delays that I was consistently hearing about from industry at that time were not even mentioned. Specifically, these were delays with respect to receiving approvals from Manitoba Hydro and the Winnipeg Land Titles Office. Had fulsome consulta - tion been done by the Treasury Board Secretariat, this would certainly have been raised as an issue.

To be clear, the City of Winnipeg is supportive of ens uring that regulatory processes are predictable, consistent, timely and transparent. And I'll acknowledge that we can always improve. The two files that were referenced as the impetus for the implementation of service timelines were the Parker Lands and f ormer stadium site. The reality is that these were two outliers, and legislative changes should not be implemented solely on the basis of addressing exceptions to the norm.

As I mentioned earlier, an application for the former stadium site has been held up by the Province at the Municipal Board for almost a year now. It's very important to note that development applications in the City of Winnipeg are handled differently than in the rest of the province.

In fact, it took a number of meetings to walk provi ncial planning staff through development applications that are unique to our City, like our development application subdivision rezoning, or DASZ process, wherein we combine a subdivision and rezoning into one development application to streamline the process, something that's not done in the rest of the province. This committee should also be aware that if

section 282.2(1) is adopted in its current form, the approval of some development applications will, in fact, take longer. For example, the City will be forced to eliminate concurrent processing of some of our development applications if no provision to pause or extend time frames is included in the legislation or subsequent regulation. The City will also be amending the process for determining when an application is deemed complete to ensure that all necessary materials have been re- ceived at the start of the process.

This will result in increased front-end costs for applicants as submission requirements are bolstered. In our meetings with provincial staff, they have knowledge –they have acknowledged that they're aware of this impact. A new change with Bill 37 that was not included in bill 48 is the inclusion of an objection provision in the charter under new

section 236 that mirrors an existing provision in The Planning Act. Part of the rationale for this addition was to ensure consistency between the City of Winnipeg Charter and The Planning Act. This brings me to the new

section 235.1 that was not included in bill 48 but was added when Bill 37 was tabled, which reads as follows: No decision on an application made under this part may be delayed and no permit may be withheld pending the preparation or adoption of the secondary plan or an amendment to the secondary plan. My first concern is with the fact that this change is unique to the City of Winnipeg, as a similar provision was not included in The Planning Act. This goes against the premise that the Province is seeking consistency province-wide. Our

interpretation is that with the adoption of this section, the City of Winnipeg would be obligated to accept and process development applications prior to the preparation or adoption of the secondary plan, which is integral to establish the framework for orderly development prior to accepting and considering development applications and/or permit applications for a given area of the city. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Pittet, you have about 20 seconds remaining. Mr. Pittet: This would defeat the purpose of the secondary plan which is widely considered a critical element in a comprehensive planning hierarchy. The City of Winnipeg respectfully requests that this

section be deleted. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank pro - vincial planning staff, in particular, David Neufeld, Stephen Walker and Mike Tellier [phonetic] for the many collaborative meetings that we have had since bill 48 was tabled. Flow charts have been amended, corrected. Most of the many questions we had have

362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 been answered and there have been some good changes made to the bill that probably could have been made had the City of Winnipeg been consulted in advance of the bill being tabled. Sorry, I think my time's up. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Mr. Pittet: I do have about a minute left. Mr. Chairperson: Well, maybe during question period you'll be– An Honourable Member: Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Wiebe. Mr. Wiebe: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Just maybe ask indulgence of the commi ttee.

I think this particular presenter is very knowledgeable and I'd like to hear maybe the rest of that presentation. * (19:50) Mr. Shannon Martin (McPhillips): I think it could be addressed during question period. We have a lot of individuals to go through. I think it's appropriate that we follow the rules as –to standardize for every individual. Mr. Chairperson: All right. I still have to put the question, then. Is it the will of the committee to allow this presenter an extra minute outside of his f ive minutes of question period? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Some Honourable Members: No. Mr.

Chairperson: I hear a no. So we will move into question period, but I will just let Mr. Pittet know that he does have the opportunity to give fulsome responses over these next five minutes, and I should also apologize for my mispronunciation of his last name; I know a few things about that myself. And so we'll move right into question period. Mr. Johnson: Well, thank you, Mr. Pittet, and thanks for your speed reading at the last little bit there, so I'm sure that you'll use these next five minutes to–with fulsome answers to continue your response.

I'm glad that you've had a great working relation- ship with the department and Mr. Neufeld and, of course, the working group and Colleen Sklar as well. So I'll leave you with that, and I'll leave you with as much time as possible to continue on your response here. Mr. Pittet: It's mostly positive–thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to acknowledge that Bill 37 includes a provision that will, for the first time, allow the City of Winnipeg to require a person to enter into a development agreement with the City as a condition of approval for a conditional use or variance con- sistent with what has already been allowed in the rest of the province. The Province has also included a provision for the minister to undertake a comprehensive review of the amendments made by this act within three years of it coming into force.

I look forward to continued participation on the Bill 37 working group, and my hope is that by working collaboratively we will all collectively strive to improve the approval process in the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba. Thanks for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Pittet. Further questions? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you, Mr. Pittet, for your presentation here this evening. You've given us a very technical presentation, and it's very thorough. So I appreciate you giving this information.

I look forward to looking back, quite frankly, through Hansard to make sure that I've, you know, grasped everything that you put on the floor here this evening, because I think you come to this with a real–obviously, an expertise. But what I'm hearing from you is is that you're really trying to work with the Province in order to get this right. And I'm also hearing from you that that hasn't really happened to this point, and that's certainly a concern that we've heard from many folks.

You know, as you mentioned in your presenta - tion, you know, this is a process that was essentially political in nature right from the get -go. Rather than working with our partners and reaching out to them, I know the Province is very heavy -handed, and so having a committee here tonight where we can actually hear your perspective and your concerns I think is important. I'm hoping the minister's listening. I'm hoping there's real opportunity for reflection, and we look forward to sort of diving a little bit more in depth with some of the concerns that you've brought

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 363 forward. I certainly hope we can bring those on your behalf here in the committee. So just wanted to thank you for your time and appreciate your input. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Pittet, in response to Mr. Wiebe. Mr. Pittet: No, I thank him for his comments and thank all the committee members for their diligence when considering this bill. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, then we will move to the next presenter. Mr. Pittet, I just wanted to thank you once again for appearing before committee.

I'm glad you were able to complete your presentation and also answer some questions. We'll now ask Duane Nicol from the City of Selkirk, and I'll call on him and ask him –the moderator to invite him into the meeting. Duane Nicol, I'd ask that you unmute yourself and turn your video on. All right, I think we have you in the meeting, but we don't have your video on yet, Duane. There we go. Welcome to the committee meeting this evening. You are free to pres ent. You have up to 10 minutes. Go ahead. Mr. Duane Nicol (City of Selkirk): My name is Duane Nicol. I'm the chief administrator officer for the City of Selkirk.

I'm presenting tonight on behalf of the city, as authorized by city council. To begin, I want to thank the Manitoba govern- ment for its recognition that planning and planning processes in Manitoba can be improved. We support the government's intention to simplify and expediate processes and to encourage economic growth. That said, we do not believe that this is what Bill 37 does.

The City of Selkirk, like many municipalities, have grave concerns about the impacts Bill 37 will have on the democratic control local citizens have through their elected councils on the economic, environmental and social development of their com - munity. This concern is even more acute for Selkirk, as we are one of the municipalities being subjugated to the new capital planning region under this bill.

With the limited time available, we will restrict our comments to three specific topics: Selkirk's strong desire to be –to not be part of the Capital Region; (2) limiting the scope of planning regions and ensuring their accountability to citizens; and (3) ensuring land use planning and development is determined locally for the benefit of citizens. In a letter to former minister of Municipal Relations Rochelle Squires, Selkirk Council formally requested that Selkirk be removed form the list of municipalities named as a part of the creation of the Capital Region in then-bill 48.

We noted that we are– that we're still listed in a sort of revised Bill 37. Tonight, Selkirk wishes to reiterate this request. We do not believe it is in the best interests of Selkirk residents to be included within a Capital Region and, moreover, w e do not believe that there is a strong economic or cultural case for our inclusion. As has been explained by provincial staff during the rollout of bill 48, the list of municipalities identi - fied in the bill mirrors the list of municipalities named in The Capital Region Partnership Act. That is a sole justification provided for their inclusion.

No analysis of data, no research into the appropriateness of the proposed boundaries, just inertia. So one might ask, why were municipalities inc - luded in The Capital Region Partnership Act? This act simply mirrored the list of municipalities who had, for years, met periodically to talk about working together on matters of mutual interest. It was purely voluntary. The boundaries of this region are completely based on the membership list of a voluntary working group established decades ago.

To date, we have not seen any rationale, data driven arguments for why the boundaries should or must begin and end where they do. The proposed boundaries of the Capital Region are arbitrary. For example, why is the village of Dunnottar, which is approximately 30–or, 63 kilometers away from Winnipeg, included in the region, but the city of Steinbach, which is only 52 kilometers away, not included? Selkirk is sufficiently distinct from the RMs and towns surrounding Winnipeg. We are not a bedroom community of Winnipeg.

We are a complete and independent urban centre, like the nearby cities of Portage la Prairie and Steinbach, neither of which are included within this region. This is reinforced by the fact that Statistics Canada does not include Selkirk within the –

364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2021 Winnipeg's census metropolitan area boundaries. There's not enough commuter traffic to justify our inclusion, nor is Selkirk sufficiently economically and socially integrated according to Stats Canada's guidelines. Sixty-four per cent of Selkirk's labour force works in Selkirk. Less than a quarter of our labour force works in Winnipeg. In fact, 41 per cent more people travel to Selkirk from Winnipeg for work than the other way round.

To put that in context, Steinbach–who again is closer to Winnipeg and some municipalities included in the Capital Region, has 68 per cent of their labour force employed in Steinbach, essentially the same as Selkirk. Interestingly, the commuter traffic between Steinbach and Winnipeg is three times the entire workforce of Dunnottar, yet Dunnottar is included and Steinbach is not. Our needs are different, and our community is not Winnipeg-focused. We provide our own sewer and water se rvices. We have high -speed Internet from multiple providers.

We have a nationally recognized accident management program and progressive vision for our land use. Selkirk is an employment centre and a service hub for the Interlake. We do not find value in the work envisioned by the Winnipeg Metro Region. Our membership, in effect, would simply have our citizens paying for the development of services for –in other municipalities, for which we competently provide them. We are just not a fit. Selkirk simply wants the same authority and responsibilities, and therefore the same empowerment to guide the development of our community, as our peer city, the city of Steinbach.

Selkirk does not think it's appropriate to, nor does it want to be, included within the C apital Region. As such, we ask that our city be removed from this bill. We also want to point out that while the legis - lation–this legislation offers municipalities the right to be consulted before being in–put into a planning region in the future, Bill 37 does not offer us that same right. It is inequitable treatment. Next, I'll talk about limiting the scope of planning regions.

Planning region organizations are provided significant powers in the legislation, effectively creating a second tier of local government through the–their power to levy fees against taxpayers through their municipal government and their power to expro- priate land –a power limited to authorities of the Crown. * (20:00) Despite these broad powers, there's little, if any, accountability to member municipalities, and ab- solutely no direct accountability to citizens.

Planning regions' budgets should require ratification by mem- ber municipalities or, at the very least, public hearings prior to approval and an appeal process so that mem- ber municipalities can formally raise concerns with how the organizations are funded and expenses are being incurred. This will help ensure that the organi - zations are accountable to the public for the dollars that they spend. Planning regions should not have the power of expropriation outside of the direct involvement and approval of the elected councils with whom the power of expropriation is already vested.

The power to take privately owned land from a citizen should be restricted to those bodies directly accountable to the citizens through the ballot box. At the very least, regions should not have the ability to expropriate land for municipal governments. Bill 37 does not articulate a clear and consistent process for regional plan approval.

Both regional plans and district plans, for that matter, should require ratification by the municipalities that are impacted by them, or, at the very least, an appeal process should be provided to ensure that member municipalities have an opportunity to challenge plans that do not align with the community vision set by the elected repre - sentatives of the citizens impacted by the plan. Bill 37 pushes vital organizational details for regional–for planning regions through regulations.

Given the importance and the authority that these organizations will wield over member municipalities, the process for municipal representation of board structure should be defined in the legislation. Putting these items in the legislation ensures stability and surety and structure. Representation of a member municipality on a planning region board should be at the discretion of the democratically elected council. Speak about the new powers of appeal to the Municipal Board.

We are aware of the work AMM has put forth in this area of the bill and we are supportive of their recommendations should these new rights of appeal be enacted –included in the act. That said, we would prefer that these special powers of appeal be removed from the act, as their clear intent

April 19, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 365 is to remove the final authority of elected councils and transfer that power to unelected and unrepresentative tribunals. Council makes land -use decisions taking into account the local, social, economic and environmental conditions. This can sometimes mean that council's decisions will be to limit or not approve a develop - ment. Make no mistake, councils want to see economic growth in their communities and they, therefore, do not make such decisions without due consideration. But the fact of the matter is not all development is good development.

The desire of a developer to make profit s should not trump the desire of a community to be sustainabl e and healthy. The Municipal Board will never be able to make a more informed and community -focused decision than a local council. It is simply not possible. While there may be some cases of poor performance by some municipalities, re moving democratic control of community develop ment for all municipalities is a draconian measure and is–draconian response, rather, to exceptions to the norm.

This new process absolutely creates new –a need for new bureaucratic procedures and administrative demands for munic ipal government. It creates new costs for both the municipalities and the province. So, again, we ask that this process be dropped but, failing that, the recommendations of AMM are the least that could be done to mitigate our concerns.

Specifically, we'd like to emphasize our support for the recommendations that articulate and limit the growth of the grounds under which an appeal can be made, preventing frivolous appeals or abuses to the process which create delays, and limiting the decision scope of the Municipal Board to limit the potential of side -stepping municipal bylaw, creating new regulation or imposing new costs onto the municipality. I thank you again for this opportunity to share our concerns. Mr.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-3-sed9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 3rd hansardpdf sed9.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	10f56b1f6ebdacc94229394b3e8e0c2dfeb98e50

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).