Recent developments in Alberta signal a significant shift in how regional planning boards are supported and perceived. The Alberta government’s decision to cease funding for the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board (EMRB) and Calgary Metropolitan Regional Board (CMRB), making membership voluntary instead of mandatory, offers valuable lessons for Manitoba and other provinces across Canada. This development is a moment to reflect on the sustainability, purpose, and effectiveness of centralized planning structures.
A Death Knell for Mandatory Regional Planning?
The Alberta government’s move highlights an inherent contradiction in the original premise of these regional boards: they were expected to be self-sufficient but remain heavily dependent on provincial funding years later. This financial dependency raises serious questions about their viability and relevance. If Alberta’s largest municipalities have struggled to sustain these organizations without government assistance, what does that say about the feasibility of similar models elsewhere, like Manitoba’s Winnipeg Metropolitan Region (WMR)?
We are not currently aware of how the Manitoba Government had intended to fund the WMR going forward. The WMR PLan 2050 does not contain any information on budget or funding into the future.
Manitoba’s government briefly entertained a similar trajectory. Bills 40 and 42 proposed making participation in the WMR voluntary. Had this legislation passed, it would have likely spelled the death of the WMR as municipalities could opt out, a clear signal that these regional planning bodies fail to resonate with the communities they claim to serve. Alberta’s recent decision shows that when forced participation ends, the cracks in the centralized planning model quickly widen.
Central Planning Under Scrutiny
The intent behind these regional boards—coordinating infrastructure, economic development, and sustainable growth—is noble in theory. However, in practice, these organizations often struggle to fulfill their promises of efficiency and cost savings. Alberta’s boards were set up to streamline decision-making and foster regional collaboration, yet they remain reliant on government handouts, raising questions about their ability to deliver tangible benefits.
More troubling is how these boards have been leveraged to push broader global agendas. Organizations like ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) and initiatives tied to the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development frequently use regional boards as vehicles to advance their goals under the guise of "efficiency" and "sustainability." This globalist overreach undermines local autonomy and prioritizes ideological objectives over community needs.
Manitoba’s Plan20-50 has faced similar criticism. Concerns about its alignment with globalist agendas, lack of local input, and the erosion of municipal autonomy echo the challenges Alberta has encountered. These boards often become tools for imposing external mandates rather than genuinely reflecting the needs and values of the communities they serve.
A Lesson from Alberta
Albertans seem to be recognizing the flaws in this approach. By cutting funding and making membership voluntary, the Alberta government has taken a bold step toward returning control to local governments. This shift underscores the need for locally driven solutions that prioritize community-specific values and practical realities over centralized mandates.
Manitoba’s government should take note. The sustainability of regional planning models like the WMR requires more than imposed participation and provincial subsidies. It demands genuine local buy-in, clear value to municipalities, and freedom from ideological interference. Central planning that ignores these principles is destined to fail, as Alberta’s experience shows.
Time for a Rethink
The failure of the EMRB and CMRB to achieve self-sufficiency is a cautionary tale. Manitoba has an opportunity to learn from Alberta’s pivot. Rather than doubling down on centralized structures, the focus should shift to empowering municipalities to collaborate voluntarily on shared priorities. This approach respects local autonomy, aligns with the values of the communities involved, and avoids the pitfalls of imposing top-down agendas.
As Alberta moves ahead with this course correction, Manitoba must consider its next steps carefully. Are we willing to follow Alberta’s lead and prioritize local governance and autonomy? Or will we continue to prop up unsustainable, top-heavy systems that serve outside interests? The choice is ours, and the stakes could not be higher.
Comments