We have just finished watching the full YouTube recording of the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region (WMR) Board meeting held on January 22, 2026 — and what we witnessed left us shocked, amazed, angered, and frankly struggling to believe what we were hearing.

It is interesting that these board meetings are broadcast live on Youtube, but after the broadcast is over, the videos are deleted from Youtube. Check the WMR Youtube page, there are no board meeting videos. Someone who watched the meeting live, recorded it and posted it to Youtube.

I wonder why there are no records kept, to allow the public to access and monitor these meetings...but that is another question isn't it.

After more than ten years of working on what is now called Plan 2050, (which they are apparently re-writing now) the board appeared to be in disarray.

Directors openly acknowledged they could not clearly explain what the plan actually does, what its real value is to their municipalities, or even how to communicate it to their own councils and residents.

At times, the discussion bordered on surreal. At others, it revealed something far more troubling: open contempt for the very residents these officials are supposed to represent.

These are not junior staff or outside consultants. These are your mayors and reeves — individuals who have been involved with this process for a decade or more — and yet the meeting made it painfully clear that many of them still do not understand the scope, implications, or consequences of the plan they are asking communities to accept.

I want you to keep in mind this...it is exactly these same mayors, and reeves, who in 2024 voted to proceed with the Plan 2050, as it was presented to them at that time!

How is it possible, that these same people voted for something two years ago, but now two years later, they cannot explain to their residents what it is or what value it is?

You need to remember this fact on election day, October 28, 2026.

Because of how serious and controversial this is, we are not asking you to simply take our word for it. In this article, we will walk you through what was actually said, using direct video excerpts from the meeting and verbatim quotes from the official transcript, so you can see and hear it for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

With the October 28, 2026 municipal election approaching quickly, this meeting should serve as a wake-up call. Representation matters. Accountability matters. And after watching this meeting in full, it is fair — and necessary — to ask whether it is time for voters to seriously consider replacing each and every one of these so-called “representatives.”

1. The Meeting Was Not About Governing — It Was About Containment

From the very beginning, it was clear that this meeting was not focused on governing, planning, or even explaining Plan 2050. Instead, the dominant concern around the table was containment — containing public reaction, containing dissent within councils, and containing the damage caused by years of unanswered questions.

Rather than asking what the plan actually does, or how it affects municipal autonomy, development decisions, or long-term growth, the discussion repeatedly circled back to questions like:

How do we prevent this from blowing up?

How do we delay public scrutiny?

How little can we say, and still meet the technical requirements?

This is not leadership. This is risk management — and not in the public interest.

Over and over, board members expressed anxiety about residents “getting spooked,” about people “targeting” the plan, and about the danger of giving the public “too much information.”

At no point did anyone seriously challenge the premise that residents have a right — or even a need — to fully understand a plan that directly affects land use, development authority, population density, infrastructure decisions, and municipal independence for decades to come.

In fact, the public was routinely framed not as stakeholders, but as a problem to be managed.

What makes this especially troubling is that this posture comes after more than ten years of work on regional planning. If, after a decade, the response to citizen concern is still fear, deflection, and delay, it raises a fundamental question:

What exactly has been accomplished during all this time?

Perhaps most revealing was the repeated admission that there was “nothing tangible” to bring back to councils — no clear explanation, no concise summary, no defensible value proposition.

This is extraordinary. Municipal councils are being asked to commit funds, accept binding regional conformity requirements, and reassure their residents — yet the very board responsible for the plan cannot clearly articulate what it is, how it works, or why communities should trust it.

Instead of confronting that failure directly, the meeting focused on timing invoices, managing opt-outs, and adjusting consultation schedules — all while openly questioning whether meaningful public consultation was even worth having.

This is not what democratic governance looks like. It is what happens when an institution becomes more invested in preserving a process than in serving the people it exists to represent.

And as the rest of this article will show, this was not an isolated moment or a few careless remarks. It was a pattern — one that becomes impossible to ignore once you listen closely to what was said.

2. “We Don’t Want to Give Them Any More Information”: Contempt for the Public, in Their Own Words

If Chapter 1 showed a board preoccupied with containment rather than governing, the transcript reveals something even more troubling: how openly and casually several board members spoke about keeping information from the public.

This is not interpretation. It is stated plainly.

At approximately 0:42:30, during a discussion about public consultation, one board member warned against transparency itself:

That statement was not challenged. It was met with agreement.

Moments later, the same speaker doubled down, explaining that even the act of consultation was undesirable:

This was not a discussion about improving public engagement. It was a discussion about whether to comply with it at all — and how to minimize it if compliance could not be avoided.

As the conversation continued, residents were repeatedly described not as stakeholders, but as something to fear, a board member described feedback from their own council:

Rather than responding to that concern by offering clarity, another board member immediately argued that more information would only make things worse:

The conclusion reached around the table was not that communication needed to improve — but that the public itself was the problem.

Perhaps most revealing was how openly the board discussed redefining consultation to avoid scrutiny, one member stated bluntly:

Another followed immediately with an admission that the exercise could be perceived as fake — because it would be:

Rather than seeing that as a reason to pause, reflect, or reset, the discussion moved toward timing strategies, terminology changes, and regulatory maneuvering — all designed to technically comply while avoiding meaningful engagement.

At no point did anyone around the table seriously challenge the idea that residents deserved full, clear, and honest explanations — even though multiple members admitted elsewhere in the meeting that they themselves could not explain the plan.

One board member captured that contradiction perfectly::

And yet, instead of recognizing that as a failure of leadership, the dominant instinct was to limit what residents should hear, delay when they should hear it, and control how it should be framed.

What makes this especially concerning is the tone. These were not heated remarks. They were calm, conversational, and widely affirmed. That suggests this mindset is not accidental — it is normalized.

Below is a video about what kind of Public Consultation they intend to do:

For voters watching from the outside, this raises a fundamental question:

If this is how elected officials speak about the public when they think no one is listening, how seriously do they take their duty to represent them?

In the next section, we will move away from tone and turn to substance — examining Plan 2050 itself. And when we do, it becomes clear why residents are asking questions — and why dismissing them is not just disrespectful, but dangerous.

3. “It’s Not Just Shared Projects”: What Plan 2050 Actually Does — and Why the Board’s Confusion Matters

Throughout the January 22, 2026 meeting, board members repeatedly minimized public concern by implying that Plan 2050 is little more than a framework for cooperation — a loose agreement to pursue shared municipal projects where it makes sense.

That characterization is not just misleading. It is demonstrably false.

In fact, the meeting transcript shows that even some board members themselves struggle to articulate what the plan actually contains, one member admitted:

That admission matters — because Plan 2050 is not a vague concept. It is a detailed, binding regional plan that fundamentally alters how municipalities plan, grow, report data, and exercise local decision-making authority.

To understand why residents are concerned — and why dismissing those concerns is irresponsible — it is necessary to outline, clearly and plainly, what Plan 2050 actually includes.

What Plan 2050 Covers (This Is Not an Exhaustive List)

Plan 2050 is not limited to shared infrastructure or voluntary cooperation. It includes:

1. Mandatory Regional Conformity

Municipal development plans, secondary plans, and zoning bylaws are required to conform to the regional plan. Where conflicts arise, the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region is granted authority to object and escalate matters beyond the municipality.

The City of Winnipeg has complete control of the process through a requirement for quorum and through the majority vote definition, under article 21 Voting of the operational terms.

This is a structural shift away from local autonomy — not a casual partnership.

Yet during the meeting, there was no discussion of conformity requirements, escalation mechanisms, or loss of municipal discretion.

2. Population Density Targets and Growth Management

Plan 2050 establishes density objectives, growth targets, and settlement patterns that municipalities are expected to align with over time. These targets directly affect land use, housing form, rural development, and future servicing decisions.

Despite this, board members repeatedly framed the plan as abstract or “fluff.” At approximately, one member remarked:

But density targets are not fluff. They are policy — and they shape communities for decades.

3. Monitoring, Metrics, and Ongoing Reporting

Plan 2050 requires municipalities to submit data, participate in regional monitoring, and align local decisions with regional key performance indicators (KPIs). This creates a permanent oversight role for the WMR — not a one-time plan.

This ongoing monitoring role was never clearly acknowledged or explained during the meeting.

4. Regional Oversight of Development Decisions

The plan enables the WMR to review major development decisions, infrastructure alignment, and growth patterns to ensure conformity with regional objectives — even when those objectives conflict with local priorities.

And yet, board members expressed surprise that residents were asking questions.

5. Long-Term Binding Commitments

Plan 2050 is not a short-term pilot or optional guideline. It is a long-horizon plan extending to the year 2050, with financial, regulatory, and planning implications that outlast current councils and administrations.

That makes transparency essential — not optional.

This Disconnect Is the Story

Against this backdrop, the tone of the board meeting becomes even more troubling.

At multiple points, members implied that public concern was overblown or irrational, even though the plan clearly affects land use authority, municipal independence, population density, and long-term governance structures.

One member summarized the problem unintentionally, when discussing consultation:

But there is a plan. It exists. It is written. And it carries real consequences.

The issue is not that residents do not understand Plan 2050.The issue is that many of the people defending it do not appear to understand it either.

When elected officials reduce a comprehensive regional governance framework to “shared projects,” they are not simplifying — they are obscuring.

And when they respond to legitimate questions with dismissal, delay, or secrecy, they deepen public mistrust rather than resolving it.

In the next section, we will examine how this misunderstanding — or misrepresentation — directly affects municipal councils, taxpayers, and voters as the October 28, 2026 election approaches.

Because once the substance of Plan 2050 is understood, the stakes become impossible to ignore.

4. Why Residents Are Right to Be Concerned — and Why Dismissing Them Is Reckless

By this point, one conclusion should be clear: public concern about Plan 2050 is not irrational, misinformed, or exaggerated. It is a logical response to a plan that carries long-term consequences — and to a board that has struggled to explain those consequences clearly, consistently, or honestly.

Residents are asking basic, reasonable questions:

• How does this affect local planning authority?

• What happens when municipal priorities conflict with regional objectives?

• Who decides density, growth patterns, and development approvals?

• What data must municipalities provide, and how will it be used?

• What authority does the WMR ultimately exercise — and over whom?

These are not fringe concerns. They go to the heart of local democracy, accountability, and self-governance.

Yet instead of answering those questions directly, the board repeatedly characterized concern itself as the problem. As heard during the meeting, residents were described as “spooked,” “squirrely,” or as part of groups “targeting” the plan, one member dismissed the idea that even neutral education would calm concerns:

That statement matters — because it reveals an assumption that no amount of clarity would ever be sufficient, not because the public is unreasonable, but because scrutiny itself is unwelcome.

This is where dismissal becomes reckless.

A plan that reshapes land use, growth management, development oversight, and municipal conformity through to 2050demands more transparency, not less. When elected officials respond to legitimate questions by limiting information, delaying engagement, or reframing consultation as something to be endured rather than embraced, they are not protecting the public — they are undermining trust.

Even more troubling is the contradiction at the center of the meeting. Board members acknowledged, on the record, that they could not clearly articulate the plan’s value or contents to their own councils, one member admitted:

That admission alone should have triggered a pause — a moment of reflection, recalibration, or even humility. Instead, the response was to further constrain what the public should be told.

That inversion is dangerous.

Democratic governance depends on the idea that authority flows upward from informed citizens, not downward from institutions that expect compliance without understanding. When elected representatives begin to see residents as obstacles rather than partners, the legitimacy of the entire process erodes.

And this matters now more than ever.

With the October 28, 2026 municipal election approaching, voters are being asked to assess not just policies, but judgment, competence, and respect for democratic norms. The question is no longer whether residents are right to be concerned. The evidence shows they are.

The real question is whether voters are willing to accept:

• a board that cannot clearly explain the plan it promotes,

• a process that prioritizes containment over accountability,

• and an attitude toward the public that ranges from dismissive to openly contemptuous.

Concern is not the threat here. Complacency is.

In the final section, we will step back and ask the unavoidable question this meeting forces upon every resident and councillor alike: what does accountability actually look like — and what should happen next?

5. What This Meeting Means for Voters on October 28, 2026

By itself, a single board meeting might be dismissed as a bad day, a rough agenda, or poor facilitation. But taken in full — and considered alongside Plan 2050 itself — the January 22, 2026 Winnipeg Metropolitan Region board meeting reveals something far more consequential.

It revealed how decisions of long-term consequence are being handled, how public concern is being interpreted, and how accountability is being understood — or avoided.

For voters, that matters more than any single policy detail.

Municipal elections are often framed as low-stakes contests focused on potholes, local services, and personalities. This meeting should put that illusion to rest. The individuals sitting on the WMR board are not distant bureaucrats — they are your mayors and reeves, appointed because voters placed them in positions of trust at the local level.

What this meeting demonstrated is that trust cannot be assumed. It must be examined.

Voters now have clear evidence — on video and in transcript — that:

• key decision-makers struggle to explain a binding regional plan they have overseen for years,

• public concern is frequently dismissed rather than addressed,

• consultation is treated as a compliance exercise rather than a democratic obligation,

• transparency is viewed as a risk instead of a responsibility.

• and the very mayors and reeves that voted unanimously for the previous Plan 2050, do not actually know what is in the Plan 2050. It is not just about shared infrastructure, but they do not seem to know it. How can they have "bought" into something two years ago, and not be able to sell it to the public.

None of this is abstract. Plan 2050 is not theoretical. It affects how communities grow, how land is used, how development decisions are reviewed, and how municipal autonomy is exercised — not for one council term, but for decades.

That makes the coming municipal election especially significant.

October 28, 2026 is not simply a chance to shuffle personalities.

It is a referendum on competence, judgment, and respect for the public. Voters have every right — and arguably a duty — to ask candidates:

• Do you understand Plan 2050 in full?

• Can you explain it clearly to residents?

• Do you believe the public deserves full transparency, even when questions are uncomfortable?

• Will you defend municipal autonomy, or defer it without scrutiny?

• Do you see citizens as partners — or as problems to be managed?

If candidates cannot answer those questions plainly, that alone is an answer.

Democracy does not fail all at once. It erodes quietly — when complexity replaces clarity, when process replaces accountability, and when elected officials grow accustomed to speaking about the public rather than with them.

This meeting pulled back the curtain.

What happens next is no longer up to the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region board.It is up to voters.

And on October 28, 2026, voters will decide whether this style of governance is something they are willing to accept — or something they are finally prepared to change.

References & Getting Involved

For readers who want to explore this issue further, review the source material directly, or take part in the democratic process ahead of the next elections, the following resources may be helpful:

• Learn more about the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region and Plan 2050Visit Manitoba Stronger Together’s WMR information hub:https://www.manitobastrongertogether.ca/wmr20-50

• Find more short clips on the WMR Board Meeting on our Youtube Page: https://www.youtube.com/@manitobastrongertogether

• Watch the full video recording of the January 22, 2026 WMR Board MeetingThe complete meeting is publicly available on YouTube:https://youtu.be/EM764YZrh_g?si=6O6eZQh-FRlfXbuR

• Find out how to get involved in the 2026 Municipal ElectionInformation for voters, candidates, and volunteers:https://www.manitobastrongertogether.ca/manitobamunicipalelection2026

About Manitoba Stronger Together

Manitoba Stronger Together (MST) is a non-partisan, citizen-led organization focused on civic education, accountability, and public engagement across Manitoba.

As the October 28, 2026 municipal election approaches, MST is actively providing voters with tools, resources, and plain-language explanations to help them understand how municipal and regional governance actually works — and how to meaningfully participate in it.

Looking ahead, MST is also preparing educational initiatives and engagement opportunities in advance of the Manitoba provincial election scheduled for October 3, 2027, with a continued focus on transparency, informed voting, and respectful public discourse.

Democracy works best when citizens are informed, engaged, and empowered — and that is the work MST exists to support.