Bill 37 amends three Manitoba environmental statutes to change how information is published, who pays for regulatory work, and how enforcement is framed. It reorganizes registry duties, gives officials new authority to charge fees for inspections and document review, and updates offence and disclosure language across Acts.
The package centralizes more operational material in the province's public environmental registry, broadens the government’s power to recover costs through fees, and tightens prohibitions on obstructing officials and providing false information. For regulated entities and communities, the bill reallocates administrative burdens, increases transparency tools for the public, and creates new regulatory detail that will be implemented by regulation or proclamation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds specific fee-authority sections to The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act and The Environment Act, authorizing charges for inspections, report review and document preparation and directing the regulations to set amounts, waivers and payment rules. It creates registry provisions that require or permit filing of notices and dispositions of appeals and lets the director file additional monitoring, compliance and inspection information about developments and hazardous waste facilities. It also replaces obstruction provisions and adds a prohibition on providing false or misleading information.
Who It Affects
Operators and owners of hazardous waste disposal facilities, dangerous-goods handlers, developers subject to environmental review, waste-disposal grounds and producers subject to the waste-reduction levy are directly affected. The provincial department will gain new fee-recovery and registry responsibilities; environmental NGOs, community groups and other registry users gain broader access to operational data and appeal outcomes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts part of regulatory costs onto regulated parties through explicit inspection-and-documentation fees and creates a more operationally focused public registry that can include monitoring and compliance records. Those changes alter enforcement windows, administrative workflows and transparency expectations—matters that compliance officers, facility operators and municipal stakeholders must plan for.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 37 rewrites key operational authorities within three Manitoba environmental statutes so the province can both disclose more operational material publicly and recover costs for frontline regulatory work. For inspectors and the department, the bill adds parallel fee sections to The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act and The Environment Act that explicitly permit charging for inspections, related services, review of reports and preparation of prescribed documents.
The regulations — not the statutes themselves — will set amounts, calculation methods, waiver or refund criteria, payment timing and consequences for non‑payment.
On public access, the bill broadens what the director can put in the public registry. It requires filing of notice and dispositions for appeals of certain decisions and gives the director a standalone authority to file ‘‘any additional information about the development’’ and to file information about hazardous waste disposal facilities.
The language is broad: monitoring, inspections, compliance, enforcement and appeals are all listed as examples of what can be filed, and the director’s discretion is explicitly subject to the Act’s records rules (e.g., section 47). That creates a new workflow where operational records—previously held in departmental files—can become routinely visible to the public.Enforcement-related language is tightened.
The statutes replace older obstruction provisions with streamlined prohibitions against hindering or interfering with directors, environment officers and other authorized persons, and add explicit offences for knowingly providing false or misleading statements or information to the department or its officers. The bill also extends the limitation period for initiating prosecutions under the amended Acts from one year to two years, giving prosecutors more time to lay charges for relevant offences.The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act change is narrower but significant: the levy amount for recycling support is no longer fixed in statute but is to be determined by regulation through a formula or tariff.
That change hands the technical setting of levy rates to the regulatory process, letting the government adjust levy mechanics without further legislative amendment. Finally, several provisions come into force by proclamation, and the bill contains transitional wording limiting the new registry-filing requirements for appeals filed before royal assent.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The director may charge fees for inspections, related services, review of reports and preparing prescribed documents under new sections 18.1 (Dangerous Goods Act) and 22.1 (Environment Act).
Regulations made under the Acts may set fee amounts or formulas, allow full or partial waivers or refunds in specified circumstances, and prescribe payment timing and consequences for non-payment (new subsections 40(3) and 41(5.1)).
The director may file in the public registry additional information at any time during a development’s life cycle (new subsection 17(2)) and may file information about hazardous waste disposal facilities, including monitoring, inspections, compliance, enforcement and appeals (new section 37.1).
The bill replaces older obstruction language and creates explicit offences prohibiting knowingly providing false or misleading statements or information to the department or its officers (new sections 23/37 and 23.1/37.1).
The waste reduction levy’s amount for any 12‑month period will be determined by a regulatory formula or tariff rather than a statutory figure (replacement of subsection 14.1(2) and related amendments).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions, fees, obstruction and registry powers
This part revises definitions (adding the Act’s public registry concept and removing some older definitions), creates section 18.1 authorizing fees for inspections, report review and document preparation, and updates the obstruction offence while adding a new offence for false or misleading information. It also inserts a provision (37.1) allowing the director to file information about hazardous waste disposal facilities in the public registry — expressly including monitoring and compliance material. Practically, operators of dangerous-goods and hazardous-waste facilities can expect both new disclosure obligations and new fee notices tied to inspections and report reviews.
Regulatory fee mechanics and enforcement of payment
The bill empowers regulations to prescribe fee amounts or calculation methods, define when fees apply, allow waivers or refunds in prescribed circumstances, and set payment procedures and consequences for non-payment. That moves detailed fee design out of the statute and into regulation, which lets government change fee schedules without amending the Act but also requires regulated parties to monitor future regulations closely for assessment bases, waiver criteria and collection mechanisms.
Expanded public registry, parallel fee authority and enforcement language
Echoing Part 1, this part adds a director power to file additional information about developments at any point (17(2)), requires filing notice and disposition for appeals of minor-alteration decisions, and creates section 22.1 to permit charging for inspections, reviewing submissions and preparing prescribed documents. It also replaces obstruction language and adds the false-or-misleading-information offence. The twin registry and fee changes mean development proponents should expect both greater public scrutiny and potential inspection-related invoices; environmental reviewers and counsel will need new internal processes for managing documents that may be published.
Fee design, waivers and collection for Environment Act activities
Like the Dangerous Goods Act changes, this clause allows regulations to set amounts or formulas for fees tied to licences, permits and inspections; to create waiver/refund rules; and to prescribe payment timing and consequences. The statutory text is permissive: it authorizes regulators to build detailed cost‑recovery frameworks that can vary by activity and circumstance, placing practical weight on regulatory drafting and guidance for predictable compliance.
Levy amount determined by regulation
The bill replaces the statutory approach to the waste reduction levy with a rule that the levy amount for any 12‑month period be set according to a formula or tariff prescribed in regulation. The accompanying amendment clarifies that the regulations can prescribe methods for estimating waste volumes used in those formulas. The effect: levy mechanics and rates become adjustable via regulation, which will streamline rate updates but reduce direct legislative control over levy settings.
Which changes start immediately and which await proclamation
Most of the Act comes into force on royal assent, but key fee and registry provisions and the waste-levy changes are subject to proclamation. Transitional clauses confirm that some new registry-filing rules do not apply retroactively to appeals filed before royal assent. That split means regulated parties and stakeholders must track proclamation notices and expect a staggered implementation rather than a single effective date.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local communities and environmental NGOs — gain broader access to monitoring, inspection, compliance and appeal outcomes through an expanded public registry, improving public oversight and information for local engagement and advocacy.
- Provincial enforcement staff and the department — receive clearer statutory authority to collect fees and publish operational records, which can increase resource predictability and enable more sustained inspection programs if regulations permit full or partial cost recovery.
- Municipalities and planning authorities — benefit from improved transparency about developments and hazardous-waste facilities in their jurisdictions, which can inform local decisions and risk assessments.
Who Bears the Cost
- Operators of hazardous-waste facilities, dangerous-goods handlers and developers — face new fee liabilities for inspections, report reviews and prepared documents and may incur higher compliance costs if more operational data are publicly posted.
- Producers and waste-disposal grounds subject to the recycling-support levy — face a levy mechanism set by regulation that could change rates or calculation methods more frequently than under a statutory figure.
- The provincial department — takes on administrative burdens for maintaining a more active public registry, implementing fee collection systems, and applying waiver/refund criteria unless the regulations include offsetting revenue to cover those functions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between public accountability—publishing operational monitoring, inspection and appeal records and charging users for regulatory services—and protecting confidential commercial and personal information and ensuring predictable, fair cost-recovery. The bill solves the transparency and funding problem by giving broad powers to disclose and to charge fees, but it pushes the hardest decisions into regulation and administrative practice, where balancing transparency, privacy, commercial confidentiality and predictable costs becomes a recurring and contested implementation issue.
The bill vests broad discretionary powers in the director to publish ‘‘any information’’ about developments or hazardous-waste facilities and to charge fees for a range of activities, but it leaves many operational details to regulation and to departmental policy. That raises immediate questions about how commercially sensitive information, personal information, solicitor-client privileged material, or site-security details will be handled.
The statutory cross-reference to existing records rules (for example, section 47 of The Environment Act) provides some limits, but the bill’s open-ended language anticipates regulatory and policy-level decisions that will determine the real scope of disclosure.
Moving fee mechanics into regulation gives the government flexibility to adjust recovery levels and to craft waivers, but it concentrates technical rule-making power in the executive branch. That is administratively efficient but increases the compliance risk for regulated parties who must monitor regulatory change rather than legislative amendment.
The bill authorizes the regulations to prescribe consequences for non-payment, which could create cash-flow pressure points for smaller operators if collection practices are aggressive and waivers are narrowly drawn. Finally, the director’s discretion to file monitoring and compliance records in the public registry could invite litigation over what must remain confidential, especially where disclosure affects competitive interests or safety-sensitive operations.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.