Winnipeg City Hall snubs the province in risky power play

There is a moment, every so often, when a government makes a choice that tells you exactly how it sees itself. Winnipeg just had one of those moments. The city’s leadership is signalling that it believes it can effectively overrule the provincial government, ignore the authority of a provincial board, and do so on the advice of its own public service rather than independent legal counsel. That raises a question residents and businesses deserve to ask out loud. Who does the city think it is accountable to?

The latest example follows a familiar pattern. When the Municipal Board agrees with the city, its decisions are held up as confirmation that the administration got it right. When the Board disagrees, the city insists it can sidestep the ruling. That double standard reveals more than frustration with a single file. It shows a mindset inside city hall that the municipal government sits above provincial oversight. That is a troubling position because it confuses authority with autonomy and places internal politics ahead of the law.

The advice behind this latest stance did not come from independent legal experts. It came from the city’s own planning staff, the same individuals who often argue their interpretations should outweigh those of elected officials, stakeholders, and even other levels of government. This is exactly the culture I have warned about for years. Winnipeg needs a proper planning commission because elected officials are not specialists in complex development files, and the public service should not be the sole guardian of planning doctrine. When the same group that drafts, interprets, and defends the rules also advises politicians on whether they can ignore oversight, we lose the balance that good governance requires.

We have already seen the cost of that imbalance. The Parker Lands case stands as a clear lesson. The city pushed a weak position all the way through the courts and lost. Taxpayers absorbed millions in costs because the public service insisted its interpretation would prevail. Residents paid the bill for a fight that never should have reached a courtroom. Today, the city is positioning itself for another potential conflict by leaning on the same internal reasoning. That should concern anyone who remembers the fallout from Parker Lands.

The city’s latest argument rests on a technical distinction. It claims the Municipal Board’s decision can be ignored because the ruling relates to a development permit rather than a zoning change. This is not a demonstration of respect for the law. It is an attempt to carve out exceptions when a provincial directive becomes inconvenient. The Board exists to ensure land-use decisions are consistent and fair. It does not exist so that the city can decide which instructions it will follow and which it will treat as optional.

What makes this even more perplexing is the city’s financial dependence on the province. At the same time it signals that it can disregard provincial oversight, it is routinely at the province’s door seeking funding for transit, infrastructure, housing incentives, and countless other needs. How does a municipal government justify asking for provincial support while arguing it can overrule the mechanisms the province uses to ensure accountability? That is not strategy. It is a power play. And it sends the wrong message at the worst time.

The province has recently studied whether the Municipal Board should have more limited powers, allowing it to simply approve or reject proposals without adding conditions. That is a worthwhile discussion. But it is a decision for the Legislature, not something for the city to preempt by rewriting the boundaries of oversight on its own. If Winnipeg wants reforms to the Board, it should make that case openly and through the proper channels. It should not attempt to establish supremacy through selective interpretation.

Investors and business leaders follow these conflicts closely. They want predictable rules and stable processes. A city that challenges oversight one month and prepares for costly litigation the next does not project stability. It signals that decisions may hinge on internal dynamics rather than objective analysis. That unpredictability undermines confidence at a time when Winnipeg must work harder than ever to attract development and growth.

There is a clear solution. Winnipeg needs a planning commission built on real expertise in land use, transportation, economics, and development. Such a commission would provide evidence-based evaluation and reduce the reliance on internal interpretations that have already proven costly. It would help council make decisions rooted in sound analysis rather than bureaucratic pressure. And it would restore the balance that prevents the kind of overreach we are now seeing.

Above all, the city must acknowledge that it operates within a wider framework. The province establishes the rules that guide municipal authority. The Municipal Board exists to enforce consistency. Oversight is not optional. Ignoring it invites litigation, drives up costs, and erodes trust. Winnipeg cannot afford another high-priced lesson in arrogance.

Strong leadership requires discipline. It means knowing the limits of municipal authority and respecting the structures that keep governments accountable. A city that relies on provincial funding cannot also behave as though it stands above provincial law. If Winnipeg wants progress, it needs cooperation, clarity, and humility, not another avoidable fight.

This is the moment for council to change course. Follow credible legal advice. Respect oversight. Build systems that promote confidence. The residents paying the bills deserve nothing less.