The committee met at 4:38 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Mike Starchuk. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’d like to acknowledge that we’re meeting today in Kitimat, which is located in the traditional territories of the Haisla Nation.

I would ask everyone else to reflect on the nations in which they work, live and play.

I’d like to also welcome everyone who is listening to and participating in today’s meeting.

Our committee is currently seeking input on the next provincial budget. British Columbians can share their views by making written comments, and details are available on our website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. The deadline for input is two o’clock on Friday, June 16.

We’re also holding a number of public meetings to hear from all British Columbians about their priorities.

All audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website, and a complete transcript will also be posted. We will carefully consider all input to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be included in Budget 2024. The committee intends to release its report in August.

I now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): I’m Tom Shypitka, Deputy Chair and MLA for Kootenay East.

R. Leonard: I’m Ronna-Rae Leonard, MLA for Courtenay-Comox.

S. Chant: Susie Chant, MLA, North Vancouver–Seymour.

A. Walker: Adam Walker, MLA for Parksville-Qual­icum.

B. Banman: Bruce Banman, MLA for Abbotsford South.

H. Yao: Henry Yao, MLA for Richmond South Centre.

B. Stewart: Ben Stewart, MLA for Kelowna West.

G. Chow: George Chow, MLA, Vancouver-Fraserview.

M. Starchuk (Chair): While we are in Kitimat right now, I just want to let everybody know that we started our day in Campbell River. We will conclude here today before moving on to Prince George tomorrow.

[4:40 p.m.]

As far as the meeting goes, each participant has five minutes, followed by five minutes of questions and/or comments.

The first speaker we have is Warren Waycheshen, district of Kitimat.

Warren, you have five minutes to make your presentation, followed by five minutes of questions and/or comments.

The floor is yours.

Budget Consultation Presentations

DISTRICT OF KITIMAT

W. Waycheshen: Thank you. My name is Warren Waycheshen. I’m the chief administrative officer, or CAO, which is a staff position, with the district of Kitimat. Mayor Germuth was unable to be here today.

I’m proud to acknowledge my family lives, works and plays in the unceded territory of the Haisla Nation, and we are grateful to live in this beautiful area.

Thanks for making the time to hear from us today. We’d like to speak a little bit about the Northwest B.C. Resource Benefits Alliance. We’re providing the district of Kitimat support, but we’re not here speaking on behalf of the RBA, or the alliance.

The Northwest B.C. Resource Benefits Alliance, or the RBA, is an association of 21 local governments across the northwest from the village of Masset to the district of Vanderhoof. It was formed in 2014, and the RBA includes all member municipalities and electoral areas for the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako, regional district of Kitimat-Stikine and the North Coast regional district.

The RBA was created to negotiate a new funding agreement with the province to enable that the northwest to benefit from the tremendous level of economic development that’s occurring in the region. This has been done in other parts of the province, including the northeast through the Peace River agreement, which previously was called the Fair Share agreement, and with the local governments in that region. The vision is to support sustainable, livable communities as has been done with these other agreements. It’s not about new taxation. It’s about using existing provincial revenues to offset the impacts of development.

On September 15, 2022, the Hon. Nathan Cullen, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, signed a memorandum of understanding with the RBA that outlines common goals and principles for future engagement. This work is still ongoing, and we hope there’s a signed agreement in the near future.

For precedent, there has been some past recognition of these impacts as $100 million was provided in 2019 and another $50 million in 2020 through the northern capital and planning grants, which provided much-needed support for infrastructure to help ensure we’re able to attract and retain residents in the area. However, an ongoing source of revenue will provide the local governments the ability to work these funds into their budgets on a regular basis.

We do recognize that in the district of Kitimat we are unique in the fact that there is the large smelter within the district boundaries and then the LNG Canada project that’s occurring, but not every community has the growth occurring within their boundaries.

As noted earlier, the province and the RBA are still working through the memorandum of understanding, and we all hope an agreement is concluded soon. We realize this may not be something that ends up with a dollar amount accommodated in this budget, but a recommendation may be that it needs to be added under a contingency or a similar action for when the amount is finally finalized.

We do appreciate the opportunity to make everyone aware of this initiative. Thank you for the opportunity to raise the district of Kitimat’s support of this important issue to this committee.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Warren.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Warren.

Tell me. With this type of agreement and the revenue sharing that you’re referring to, what would that money be used for that’s different than local taxation that you collect already?

W. Waycheshen: For a lot of the communities, what they’re seeing are the impacts of industry coming in — they may be on the periphery of the community — and using services and not necessarily contributing to the tax base towards it. It may be spelled out in an agreement — I’m not sure what that may look like when it’s concluded — to say that it needs to be for infrastructure or for other items. Or would it be into general revenue? That would be, I guess, the final.

Looking at things like the Fair Share, now the northeast agreement, they do have some of the parameters in there. It could be something along those same lines.

[4:45 p.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much. Actually, I appreciate Ben’s leading question, which leads into the question I have.

You’re hoping for contingency and ongoing funding to support the benefit alliance to, as you mentioned earlier, upset some of the, I guess, companies that are coming in, using resources but not contributing to local taxation. Can you give me some examples of some of the ways that funding can be used to actually ensure that money is being funnelled in a way that can benefit local residents?

W. Waycheshen: With the northern capital and planning grants that came out previously, the $100 million and then the $50 million, there is a reporting structure. There were the items that were provided to say it could be used for certain infrastructure or for planning or other items. Then it’s something that local governments report on annually to the province to say: “This is what we used our portion of the funding towards.” So it’d really be as much strength as the Ministry of Finance and the province felt was needed.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Warren, if I may, you mentioned that there were 21 communities that are part of the RBA. I’m not going to put you on the spot, but could you mention the 21 just for the sake of Hansard?

W. Waycheshen: Yeah. In the North Coast regional district, we’ve got the village of Masset, village of Port Clements. I’m not as strong with the pronunciation of the village of Queen Charlotte that went through. It was reverted to the Haida name. But I’m sorry. I cannot pronounce that one very well.

Prince Rupert, district of Port Edward, district of Kitimat, city of Terrace, district of Stewart, village of Hazelton, district of New Hazelton, town of Smithers, village of Granisle, village of Burns Lake, village of Fraser Lake, village of Fort St. James, district of Vanderhoof. I kind of went through the list there. I’m hoping I didn’t miss anybody.

M. Starchuk (Chair): No, no. Thank you. I appreciate the fact that there are some words that are really hard to pronounce. As the person that sits up here, I do it daily.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Warren. I’ll get him back later for that.

The fee structure — are there any details on what that price will be to industry? Is it based on a net revenue or a gross revenue or a commodity price?

W. Waycheshen: For the committee, with these ones, a lot of the communities…. We did our sheets that said what some of our infrastructure deficits that were out there. Then, really, looking at the province, it’s a matter to say what can be accommodated through the existing budgets for it, because we realize it is through provincial revenues with it.

We took more of the approach from the local government side of saying that this is something that would be workable for us.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): So it’s up in the air. Okay.

R. Leonard: Thanks for presenting today. As I recall this from a number of years ago, the real need and the comparison that we heard at that time was between what was going on in Kitimat and the growth but also how Terrace was being impacted as a bedroom community to Kitimat….

From what I’m hearing from the questions, it might be helpful to share just what kind of challenges that Terrace has experienced and what Kitimat has experienced.

W. Waycheshen: For the committee, for a lot of the communities that are out there, you’re seeing people come in on the weekends to use services, so it impacts roads, other items, even using hospitals, hotel rooms, all that stuff. For some of that, it makes it that there are a lot of the pressures coming in.

For a lot of us, we expect, as you have the wear and tear on your existing infrastructure, you have the funds to bring it back up to rehabilitate it. Where with some of those ones, when they’re seeing a lot of people coming through, there’s just not the same corresponding revenues that we see here in Kitimat. We do recognize that one.

I know it’s always been said, and looked at in the fair share agreement too, that when there is a community that is not having those experiences, it has to accommodate for that.

[4:50 p.m.]

I have no idea what the agreement, once it’s done, would ever look like. We do recognize that we are completely different. We’ve had a lot of wear and tear. We’ve had a lot of the issues. There are these tax revenues coming in. So it’s a lot easier to go for the roads that are wearing out a lot faster than people expected and items of that nature.

G. Chow: Obviously, things are going well in Kitimat.

How do you deal with the workers’ housing issue? Is there a great shortage of that?

W. Waycheshen: With LNG Canada…. A lot of effort went into their environmental assessment certificate around housing.

Most of the time…. People would say you have 50 percent of the population again. So for our usually about 8,000 to 9,000, there could be another 4,000 people. You really don’t see it because they are out at the lodges. We do have some lodges in town that accommodate people for the Coastal GasLink project or other construction projects happening.

The district of Kitimat right now is having a…. We’re doing a bridge over the Kitimat River, which is about a $60 million project, the biggest one that we’ve taken on.

For a lot of that, the workers are coming into the airport on their charter flights and being brought in by buses, and you’re not seeing a lot of impact. It is great when you’re getting to see people in the community coming in, enjoying the community and seeing what we have, but there’s not a large amount, thousands, of people walking through.

When the Rio Tinto smelter was being upgraded a few years before this one, it gave some really good lessons about when you have people in the community. It’s always great to have them in, but your infrastructure can only take so much.

Really, with that project out there…. With the fact that they’ve got these huge lodges out there with full facilities, they’re able to accommodate their workers. It’s really quite quiet, considering we have the largest investment in Canadian history happening here right now.

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right. Well, thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon, Warren.

W. Waycheshen: Thank you for having me.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next up we have Arthur Renwick.

Sorry, we’re going this way. Okay. Next up we have Sharon Bandstra, the Garage Community Space Society.

Sharon, you have five minutes to make your presentation, followed up by five minutes of questions and/or comments.

The floor is yours.

GARAGE COMMUNITY SPACE SOCIETY

S. Bandstra: Thank you for coming all this way and for allowing me to talk.

My name is Sharon Bandstra. I’m here on behalf of the Garage Community Space Society. The Garage society facilitates networking and connection between existing social service and government agencies, including the Northern Health Authority, operating in the Terrace area.

Everyone from politicians to social workers to neighbours is noticing that the Garage is uniquely situated for a great impact in our community. The Garage space is being used to host activities and events, to collaborate with social agencies and government partners and to assist and work with them regarding homelessness and addictions.

In 2021, our city of Terrace was, and still is, experiencing a crisis with homelessness and substance user struggles, including an overwhelming number of overdoses in our area. There are also many incidences of crime and of theft within the business community and in neighbourhoods, making people upset and frustrated. Many Indigenous peoples are struggling with mental health and addictions in our region.

We have organizations and agencies that address these issues, and they are working extremely hard. As there is still a gap, citizens are looking to the city and the provincial government to solve the issues. During several town hall meetings, there was a plea for solutions.

My husband, Sid, and I were convinced that we needed to step up. In October of 2021, we purchased, with our personal finances, a property that is a few blocks from downtown. It’s now called the Garage. We continue to invest in this, making it a welcoming and usable space. It is a way that we can contribute and make a difference to the well-being of the community.

With a team of six others and myself, we have created a non-profit called the Garage Community Space Society. As a volunteer, I’ve been working, putting in probably more than full-time hours, collaborating with city staff, social services and government agencies, including Northern Health, to help in the ways we can.

I’ve been able to connect with many businesses, community members and faith communities to establish, support and utilize volunteers in a variety of different ways. People have donated goods and services and volunteered their time to help the Garage in making a difference for the vulnerable and for our community.

[4:55 p.m.]

The Garage hosts the Terrace Church’s food bank, AA groups, a weekly peer substance abuse network group, Outreach Thursday, where volunteers, community members and social agencies, along with those who are experiencing homelessness, come together. There are other support groups and monthly board meetings for various non-profits.

We host one-time events with many of these agencies and use it as a cooling space in the summer and a warming space in the winter for vulnerable people. We do not charge for use of the space.

The Garage has been very welcome and has been successful in doing what we are doing so far. It would be important and beneficial to be open every day and to be able to provide more help to our vulnerable community members. Therefore, we have three recommendations to continue and enhance what we are doing for the community.

A commercial kitchen. There are many ways that we could use a kitchen, in many areas. We have a room in the Garage, which was originally a parts room, that we fixed up and painted. It’s ready for the next stage.

Two full-time staff persons would be awesome. Two staff are always crucial to the Garage’s ability to operate. We require two people to be present in the building to be open, for safety reasons. We would also be able to open every day.

A security fob system would allow easier control to access the building and monitoring. We have a variety of users, some being one-time or limited users. A video and security system would be important for the safety of staff, volunteers and clients, as we’re in a high-risk environment and working with a vulnerable population.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Sharon.

Before we even start, just that little brief part that was there lets all of us know how community-based and how the passion you have with what’s there….

S. Chant: Thank you so much for the work that you do. That’s amazing and very motivated.

Do you have a dollar figure for what you’re looking for? Have you sussed it out?

S. Bandstra: Yeah, I do. I have it written in here. For the kitchen, we felt, probably, to get it all done — we have the gas there, but we would have to put the line into the building — $125,000. That’s a guess.

For two full-time staff…. Right now I’m in the executive director role. I would love to put somebody else in that role. I don’t know, $70,000 a year. I don’t know what…. Then for the other one, $50,000.

For the fob security system, we did get a couple of estimates. It’s about $20,000 to put in the cameras and then to also get a fob system. We would have to put in specific glass, a different door in the front door.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. It’s incredible how much you’re contributing of your personal finances to support the well-being of the community.

If you don’t mind me asking, throughout your organizational growth, have you attempted to try to apply to different kinds of gaming grants, community grants? What kinds of challenges were you experiencing? Maybe help enlighten us on what kinds of barriers you are facing. That way, we can find a better way to support non-profits like yours.

S. Bandstra: In January, we became a non-profit. That’s when we started…. We couldn’t apply for anything before that.

The Terrace Rotary actually just gave us almost $8,000. They also will help us to see how we could access gaming funds, which we haven’t yet.

I have been connected with the United Way. They sent me an email to apply for something. We didn’t receive it, but it was a good process.

Any way that we can receive funding, we’ll work on it.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Sharon, for the presentation. Any kind of community-based outreach and support is super critical right now. We need all hands on deck, for sure.

[5:00 p.m.]

You mentioned a couple other supports — churches, and other local groups like that. For addiction and recovery, is your support abstinence-based? Do you provide any types of injection sites or anything like that on site, or is it purely abstinence-based?

S. Bandstra: Well, we have a substance user group that meets on Tuesdays. It’s like a support group, talking with them to find out what issues they have and what barriers they have. It has been a really neat thing, because they’ve actually formed a group, with a name. Tomorrow they’re going out to do some cleaning in the town.

Sorry. I got lost in my….

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): What I’m getting at is that there are different levels of support and different types of it. Some folks will have abstinence-based. I’ve talked to a lot of church groups; great. Some provide that actual hard-user, harm reduction site on premise. I didn’t know how it was constructed. I think you’re more abstinence….

S. Bandstra: Well, we almost don’t have to say one way or the other. We don’t stop anybody from coming in. I mean, how can you tell if they have drugs? If they’re very drunk or whatever, they don’t seem to come. If they come, you can smell alcohol and stuff. But they’re just support groups. So we don’t have to even mention that. We don’t stop anybody from coming in.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): For sure. I get that.

B. Stewart: I just wanted to ask. Last year we had a presentation in Terrace, from some group that was getting food out to places all the way to Dease Lake. They were doing it. I forget exactly, but the food would come; there’d be distribution. This kind of goes back to kids’ hot meals at schools, etc. It’s not exactly that, because it’s so broad.

I’m just wondering. I know that that was of particular interest to this group, and I just wonder: is there an ability to use that commercial kitchen in doing something like that? I’m just talking support.

S. Bandstra: Yeah. I don’t have any…. I just know the interest in…. Oh, that kitchen would be utilized, because a lot of people are very interested, even in meals for seniors. Even the food bank would be able to provide some cooking classes and stuff for their clients. Also, the substance user group would be able to use it to make meals. Yeah, there’d be a lot…. We probably wouldn’t have enough days in the week to use it.

R. Leonard: Thank you so much for coming to present today. I’m blown away by your generosity and the compassion that you’ve brought to this and how you help community. I want to acknowledge the MLA for the area, who made a two-minute statement in the House to really shine a light on what you’re doing. I know every community is struggling with this kind of issue, and it sounds like the steps that you’re taking are making a real difference.

I’m just curious about the community acceptance around it. You have a lot of helpers that are coming in and being a part of it. Do you get any push-back on what you’re doing?

S. Bandstra: No. I haven’t at all. At first, I felt like it was for the homeless and the people who are struggling with addictions. What I’ve been finding is that there has been, actually, even as much or more so, support for the outreach workers from these agencies.

On Thursdays, we meet together. All the agencies come with their outreach workers. There are more than 12 agencies that come with their outreach workers, and they meet together. They’re connecting; they’re collaborating. Because of that, we’ve had a winter-warmth room in the building, and I’ve been able to access that. So no push-back, and they’ve been using the building for different purposes.

R. Leonard: You have a beautiful community too.

[5:05 p.m.]

S. Chant: This is more of a comment. I just want to say how amazed I am at how much you have achieved in a relatively short period of time. If you could come down into my community and do some work down there, I’d appreciate it, because we haven’t gotten 12 agencies to work together ever, I don’t think.

Thank you so much. That’s a huge amount, to get everybody together and get them working cohesively — well done — and not getting community push-back. So you’ve got the formula.

S. Bandstra: They’re working together. They’re the ones doing all the hard work. We’re just providing a space. So I feel like they’re the heroes.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Sharon, before we conclude, I wrote down a question: how big is this space?

S. Bandstra: You know what? I should know, but I can’t even remember the square footage. It was a gas station, but it has a great, big main area with two offices and a bathroom. Then it has the car bay and the two garage doors. It was a car wash. That’s the storage from the food bank.

I have a picture here. It’s hard to see. Then the parts room, which is all ready to be a kitchen. Then in the back, it’s all fenced in. The city has allowed me to use that. There was a roadway behind our garage, between us and the next house. We are using that for raised garden beds. With the kitchen, with the food bank, with the clients, it would just…. Yeah.

M. Starchuk (Chair): We don’t need to put a number on square footage of caring. That’s truly how I…. I’ve listened to everything that you’ve said. It is a building full of care, with no barriers, and that is a key point.

Sharon, thank you for your presentation and, more importantly, thank you for what you do for your community.

S. Bandstra: I will leave a PowerPoint that I had given to the B.C. United caucus. They were Liberal when I was there. Anyway, I’ll leave that with Emma.

Thank you for listening, and thank you for all you do.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay, great. Thank you very much, Sharon.

Next up is Alison Thompson, Canadian Geothermal Energy Association.

Alison, you are going to definitely get your steps in today. It is a big room. You have five minutes for your presentation and then five minutes from the committee for questions and/or comments.

CANADIAN GEOTHERMAL
ENERGY ASSOCIATION

A. Thompson: Hello, and thank you very much for your invitation today. My name is Alison Thompson, and I am a co-founder and chair of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association, CanGEA. I am delighted to be presenting here today, not far from a project one of our member companies, Kitselas Geothermal, is developing between here and Terrace.

CanGEA would like to elaborate on three vital recommendations outlined in our written submission, which will lead the way in unleashing British Columbia’s geothermal energy potential. It’s a province rich in natural resources and ambitious in reducing its carbon footprint.

Firstly, the government should provide targeted support for geothermal energy in CleanBC programs. Secondly, it’s crucial to simplify the existing geothermal tenure and well permitting processes, making geothermal solutions more accessible. Thirdly, we urge the government to extend regulatory parity to geothermal, equivalent to what is provided to clean energy industry counterparts.

Our first recommendation calls for targeted support for geothermal in the CleanBC funding programs. This funding can be used to switch fossil fuel and electricity demand to low-carbon, highly efficient, geothermal industrial heating.

Traditional heating methods heavily rely on fossil fuels, which contribute to greenhouse gases, or electric heating, which is less efficient than geothermal energy. In our opinion, the province has overlooked geothermal, the cleanest and most heat-efficient alternative feasibly available, in favour of an overreliance on future electricity use in plans.

[5:10 p.m.]

Geothermal has the potential to be a game-changer in the energy industry. However, its potential remains largely untapped, due to insufficient or non-targeted government funding.

By funding geothermal heating solutions, where geothermal resources exist, we could avoid the economic, adverse side effects of B.C. Hydro’s voluntary load curtailment program and the environmental side effects of burning fossil fuels in industrial applications. This would accelerate our progress towards a sustainable no-carbon future while simultaneously developing the economy.

Recommendation No. 2 is geothermal tenure and well permitting. We propose simplifying the geothermal permitting process to encourage sector growth. This would make geothermal development less time-consuming and more cost-effective for new and existing geothermal energy providers.

The current system — with its limited number of geothermal tenures, lengthy acquisition processes and the non-tailored application management system for well drilling authorizations — presents a considerable barrier to the growth of B.C.’s geothermal energy sector. A regulatory overhaul is needed to streamline the geothermal permitting process and increase the number of available permits.

We need only look to our neighbour, Alberta, to see the positive impacts of such changes. Since implementing its industry-friendly geothermal permitting framework in 2021, Alberta has seen significant growth in its geothermal industry.

B.C. is far behind Alberta in this regard, as B.C. has only issued one permit to Alberta’s 32 in the same time period. Incidentally, the permit went to the project just north of Kitimat that I’m visiting today. A representative from Kitselas Geothermal Inc. is with us, today. His name is Dr. David Try, and he’s the chief Kitselas senior treaty negotiator. He is available during the Q and A as well.

By developing a portal that is specifically tailored to the needs of geothermal projects, as Alberta has done, we can make the permitting process more efficient and user-friendly. This would help unleash the potential of geothermal energy by encouraging more players to enter the market, sparking competition and innovation.

Our third recommendation calls for fiscal and regulatory parity for geothermal equal or equivalent to that of other non-emitting energy counterparts. Geothermal energy, a sustainable low-carbon solution, has immense potential to meet our energy demands and diversify the economy. Despite this, geothermal has been overlooked in current environmental and incentive policies, including the greenhouse gas reduction regulations, the fuel switch greenhouse gas offset protocol and the Greenhouse Gas Emission Control Regulation.

For example, renewable natural gas and hydrogen projects receive a preferred electricity rate from B.C. Hydro to operate their equipment, whereas geothermal does not receive the same advantage for operating its pumps. The pump of geothermal operating costs is the company’s largest operating cost. This is a big deal for our industry to get equivalent parity for regulatory programs.

Including geothermal energy in B.C.’s investment and development policies will not only elevate its public profile but also galvanize public support, accelerating our transition towards sustainable energy. Creating a level playing field, where geothermal can compete fairly with other renewable sources and conventional fossil fuels, is essential, leading to a diversified, sustainable, secure energy future.

CanGEA urges the government to consider these recommendations as we collectively navigate towards a sustainable future, where geothermal energy plays a vital role in the energy landscape. The potential benefits of a geothermal fuel future — which is a clean environment, economic growth and societal well-being — are immense. We encourage the government to acknowledge geothermal energy’s viability and commit to unleashing its tremendous potential. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Alison, thank you for your presentation this afternoon.

B. Banman: Thank you for your presentation. We’ve heard there’s a debate as to how efficiently heat pumps work. Especially in northern climates, they are expected to dramatically lose their efficiency. Would this particular system work better in the North and help northern communities, in particular, to be able to meet those carbon-neutral goals that we’re seeking with regards to clean energy?

A. Thompson: I don’t mean to be facetious. I’m not an expert in heat pumps. So the geothermal we’re talking about is really analogous to oil and gas. You actually drill down anywhere from half a kilometre, as opposed to many metres, or even three kilometres. What’s down there are reservoirs of hot water. The earth below that has already heated up the water, and you tap into a reservoir.

We’re not representing heat pumps. Heat pumps — I think everyone should be doing them. They do them in Scandinavia and Russia. I’ll give them a plug. We’re one of the only countries not doing heat pumps. I’ve said it. I love them.

[5:15 p.m.]

What we are talking about today is regulatory parity with hydrogen, renewable natural gas, the big energy sources.

G. Chow: Thank you, Alison. Following up on your question….

So you get the heat energy from half a kilometre away. What are you using that energy for, to generate power or district heating or…?

A. Thompson: Wonderful. Mr. Chow, I’m so happy you’ve asked this question.

I think there was a lot of attention on taking geothermal energy and running it through a turbine to make electricity. A while back, B.C. Hydro used to have a program, a standing offer program. I’m a chemical engineer. The energy efficiency of taking hot water, like a kettle, and making electricity is about 12 percent. So it’s like the worst thing to do. Chemical engineer.

The best thing to do with hot water is right there. Everyone, please look at the radiator. That is what…. Somewhere in this building there is a natural gas boiler, or propane if it’s trucked in, probably downstairs, burning to heat up water, and then it’s distributed. So at the very basic level, the efficiency of that in an industrial process is literally 99 percent. So we want to keep that hot water as hot water, and we want to find, preferably, industrial customers close to the well field so there’s not a lot of piping distance. With piping distance, you’re going to have to insulate the pipe, and you’ll lose heat.

So as much as we could serve residential and commercial, what our recommendations are about here are just to point and shoot to large industrial customers. We want to work with B.C. Hydro to stop electrifying them.

The ability to have a dam make electricity, send it 1,000 kilometres and then to take electricity and make it back into heat — that’s also really energy destroying from an efficiency point of view. Just giving that industrial customer the heat that they want in their process — that’s the solution. We’re one of the only countries not doing it, for example. So people who have these resources really lean into it.

G. Chow: So where can you find these sources of heat and water — everywhere or just in this area?

A. Thompson: It’s a lot like oil and gas. It’s where resources exist. So if you’ve ever seen the hot springs in B.C., all of those places have it. The other place that has copious amounts of this really hot water is northeast B.C., and we know that because the oil and gas industry drilled that area extensively and found that hot water.

For them, it’s a nuisance. It’s wastewater. It’s actually a cost. For the project that we’re close by today…. It’s between Kitimat and Terrace. Kitselas Geothermal are developing that. Its hot water is somewhere between…. It comes out of the ground in a hot spring at 80 degrees Celsius. We think, when we drill into it, it will be more like 150 Celsius. So any industrial processes, be it a sawmill, a bioenergy plant and LNG Canada that uses refrigeration…. All of those big, industrial customers can just use heat as heat at almost perfect efficiency.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation.

One of the things that I’ve been hearing is about using the abandoned fracking wells and converting them for geothermal. Now, what you just said made me realize the notion that that’s of use. I’m curious, in terms of finding non-emitting energy sources, if that’s something that you’re familiar with, if you see that as a benefit.

A. Thompson: I’ve crossed the continental divide today from Alberta, so I’m super familiar with abandoned oil wells, disused oil wells. I’m probably the only industry representative who ever says negative things about their industry. You don’t want to use existing infrastructure.

Existing infrastructure is amazing. It found the information. We call that data. Now that we know where that data is, you have a very high level of what an offset well would be. When you work with geothermal, you actually want to drill your own brand-new well, because the diameter will be suited to your application, where the oil and gas diameters are quite narrow.

As well, they might have been sour with CO₂ and hydrogen sulfide. The liability of taking on somebody else’s equipment…. Of course, it’s down a hole. It’s hard to see the integrity of the well pipes. We want to use all that data to step off and drill your own bespoke well. So thank you to the oil and gas industry for giving us data, because that data is very expensive to gather, and they’ve done this for northeast B.C.

In the projects back in the Kitimat-Terrace region and the other hot springs, there’s very little data. The industry has to start from scratch and do exploration. You don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but you don’t want to be using their infrastructure.

[5:20 p.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I really appreciate the time you’re spending with us.

I’m reading an article right now. I remember reading this article earlier, a few years ago. Richmond, where I’m representing, does have a geothermal station which provides heating and cooling for condos, but the condo residents are complaining of the cost as an issue.

Do you foresee any way…? If we do upscale geothermal projects, will there be a way to actually reduce that cost? That way it’s actually more affordable for residential units to utilize the benefit of geothermal for heating and cooling.

A. Thompson: Henry, I’m really glad you’re bringing up cooling, because everyone thinks that geothermal can only do heating. I mentioned LNG Canada and their refrigeration process. When you actually have hot-enough water…. This is a bit mind-blowing as well. If you think about your refrigerator at home, when you go behind your fridge, it’s actually hot. Those coils are hot. Running the geothermal process in reverse actually takes hot water and makes it into cooling.

What you’re talking about though is, again, heat pumps. There’s actually a British Columbia Utilities Commission going on right now about exactly that. There have been certainly some strata, I think they’re called…. I call them condos, too, but I think they’re called strata here. The strata situation is a little bit vulnerable to certain owners who have had to buy into these processes.

The heat pump or district heating for residential is of interest to me, but what our industry represents is really the hard-to-abate and the very, very large industrial customers. You can think about it as…. If you want to do all that project, you could do one customer, which is megatonnes of CO₂, or you could do mega-residential. You could spend a lot more time and money putting pipes to everybody’s house, or just pick your really largest emitters in the province and solve your industrial heating with renewable geothermal.

M. Starchuk (Chair): One last brief question and comment.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. I’m totally in support of everything you’re doing here. We need all the energy sources we can. We need to bring back the standing offer program to grow some of these industries that we need to do.

Geothermal being so…. It’s very location-specific. You just can’t put it up anywhere. You mentioned the oil and gas industry kicking in with some of that data that you need to identify those locations. How important is it to you to incorporate Geoscience B.C. and the data they collect? How important is that information for your industry, going forward?

A. Thompson: I spend more time with maps than I do with numbers. Isn’t that crazy to think about? It’s a treasure map pure and simple. Again, back to being a chemical engineer, you can make anything work, but life is too short. There are easy solutions out there. You want to map where geothermal resources exist and where your industry already exists and get all the low-hanging fruit.

The ideal would be…. If the map still has a bunch of geothermal locations, it’s a bit like the baseball analogy: build it, and they will come. You want to get the industry going, but then you want to go all over the province where you have geothermal resources and invite others in. That’s what the Kitselas project is doing with their industrial park, just between here and Terrace.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): A quick follow-up. Have you done any work with Geoscience B.C. at all?

A. Thompson: They’ve been somewhat helpful. They’ve not been participating in the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association projects. They’ve been very heavily academic-focused and organizing large consortia of academic researchers. I’d say there’s a big difference between people who spend money and people who study to spend other people’s money.

There is some low-hanging fruit. We have the maps. We have interested customers. Companies have permits. There’s no need to wait to research. Let’s get the industry going.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, Alison, I will say thank you for your animated presentation that you’ve given us this afternoon.

We have a little bit of a switch up, if you’re looking at your agenda in front of you. We will now have Dr. David Try from Kitselas Geothermal corporation.

KITSELAS GEOTHERMAL

D. Try: I’m David Try. Thank you for your time this afternoon.

I don’t have any prepared remarks because I wasn’t aware I was speaking. I’m going to make Alison switch hats right now and to join me on the KGI, Kitselas Geothermal, board.

I live and work in Kitselas. I’m authorized to speak on behalf of the nation. I’m their senior treaty negotiator, so I meet some of your good employees every month. We’re almost finished that treaty, by the way. We will finish in the next three or four months. So that’ll be on your agenda coming up hot, I think.

[5:25 p.m.]

On the geothermal, I’d just like to say that Alison speaks so passionately, and she has encouraged me. You know you’re on the Ring of Fire here, right? And you know that the most recent volcano, which is one evidence of being on the Ring of Fire, was just about 70 kilometres north of us in the Nisg̱a’a territory. If you get a chance one day, go up and take a look at their tour. They have a little tour all arranged. So you know that the molten lava is high here as compared to anywhere else in Canada, and also down the coast of B.C. as well.

Kitselas has been exploring this geothermal project because we think it’s cool. We just think it’s interesting. We’ve put some money into it and more time and our reputation, of course, and we’ve been doing that for ten years. So we’re not new at this game.

I would say, without any intent to offend you, that I don’t see much effort from B.C. to support geothermal. You certainly haven’t supported us. I know we’re First Nations…. When I say these words, that we’re First Nations, I’m not offended or concerned by that. I just think, for your consideration, that energy is a major source of the economic future of B.C. — all kinds of energy. “All kinds of energy” is a simple statement. Geothermal should have a place at the table.

We do have a geothermal permit, which took us 21 months to get. That is an astonishingly long period of time. I had great support by the bureaucrats. It was not the bureaucrats; it was the system that was blocking us from getting that. We’ve got it now, so we’re off and running.

I would encourage you, as you look at what your budget is, as this comes up, to think: how can we position all of these energy sources on a level playing field? Alison spoke to the inequities of the B.C. Hydro system right now that are poised to harm us in an economic way — not enough to stop the project, of course. I’m just going to ask Alison to say a couple of words of what kind of fiscal support or financial support we would be able to use if you created a grant program or some kind of a program that supports geothermal. She’s the engineer, and I’m not.

A. Thompson: I think what David is speaking to is that it takes a long time to get a permit here.

Now, there are differences between our province and Alberta, fair enough, obviously with treaties. But through CanGEA’s influence, Alberta started during COVID, so 2020. By 2021, they had an act in place. As of yesterday, there are 32 permits that have been processed, and there are about another, let’s call it, 40 that have yet to be processed. But they’re on it. They’re very dedicated. Their Alberta Energy Regulator versus B.C. Energy Regulator has a department, and they’re very focused.

Let’s just go to David’s point. Once you get a permit, which is what the Kitselas Geothermal project has, just north of here and south of Terrace, and you have that industrial customer lined up, then you have to build that pipeline I talked about. You want to make it as short as possible because you don’t want to lose a bunch of heat transporting it in a pipeline system. But what if that customer had a twin? What if that customer was a cluster of customers?

If we have to build a pipeline through a right of way, we really want to measure twice and cut once. What we don’t want to do is lay this pipeline from our project site to the customer, and then everyone looks in and goes: “Oh, I want that too.” Then all of a sudden, we’re back disturbing the land, having to go through consultations again and engaging stakeholders and upsizing that pipeline or laying a double.

The opportunity we have right now…. The project is funded for what we’re going to call the base project. There are other customers who are interested. We would love the B.C. government to participate in the Kitselas Geothermal project and help us build an upsized pipeline.

It’s strategic infrastructure. I think that with the B.C. government’s suggestion, we’re allowed to then be referred to, even better, the Canadian government’s infrastructure fund. They’re the ones that actually would provide the money. However, you need a referral from the province. That would be one avenue.

We want to measure twice, cut once. We want to lay strategic infrastructure from the geothermal reservoir. Think of it not as one project; think of our project as more like the northeast B.C. We have a very large geothermal reservoir. It is bigger than one customer. It’s something like…. We could have 20 of those customers and still have enough renewable geothermal left over.

Building that pipeline — that’s something that should be given some thought. Not just letting a company go build a small one. Let’s build some infrastructure here.

D. Try: Can I just add one thing? We’ve spent about $6 million on research. That’s a little company from Alberta and Kitselas First Nations, with support. We’re going to need another $18 million to $20 million to build a pipeline and set it up. That’s the cost of this project. Not $1 billion dollars, but not $10,000 either.

A. Thompson: Thank you. You’re right.

I forget sometimes because those numbers seem big for me. It’s a very strategic, big bang for the buck, for the amount of money that David’s talking about.

[5:30 p.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): David and Alison, thank you very much for the presentation.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the update there.

You mentioned the Ring of Fire. Hydrothermal plants are based on geological hot spots, but it’s kind of a double-edged sword a little bit. That is where you receive the best benefit from a hydrothermal plant. But, also, on the other side, there are things out there that could lead to higher earthquake frequency.

Hot, dry rock is one of those processes that can bring that energy forward, but it also increases the risk of seismic activity. Is there any truth to that? How do you square that circle on…? You’re talking about some large projects here. I’m just wondering how you….

A. Thompson: You’re so well-informed. I appreciate that you’re a student of geothermal. We’ll have to geek out later in a hot spring.

You’re actually mixing a little bit of apples and oranges. The funny thing about, and you used the right word, hydrothermal, so water and heat and the ring of fire…. Those systems are actually very natural, very porous. There’s a lot of water already moving around.

The hot, dry rock is in northeast B.C. What you’re talking about now is a bit more, again, engineered or man-made or forced. The water is down there, and you do have to use, potentially, some seismic methods to allow you to have better permeability and porosity — make it more high-volume.

The microseismic earthquakes are more prevalent in those areas, in the hot, dry rock within our province, in northeast B.C. The hydrothermal systems are already moving immense quantities of water naturally. The issues of earthquakes are not an industry concern.

That’s not to say that…. The one thing you want to do…. To be renewable, you want to match Mother Earth. If Mother Earth is only giving you this much, you take that much, and then you renewably put it back down.

There are always two wells, a production well and an injection well. If you match that, you stay within what’s happening normally. It’s not earthquakes every day, normally. The minute that you start to get a little bit greedy, and you start pulling on things or taking it out where it’s not normally moving around, is when you have to manage the stresses. Companies like ours have lots of PhD seismologists and things on staff, but that would be the industry concern.

R. Leonard: Actually, that was related to my question. I really appreciate the response, though, on the record.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): I’ll take your question, then.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Yes, you will.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Take what you can get and not force more than what you need or what’s available. How predictable is that model, then, on actually identifying what energy is available? How predictable is that?

A. Thompson: In much of the oil and gas industry, you can have those 95 percent confidence levels or 50 percent confidence levels when you talk about the size of your resource. How you do that is through exploratory wells as well as the geoscience campaigns. Once you have enough of that information, I would say it’s pretty reliable.

That pattern is analogous to other projects around the world, so you can also bring in that information. It really comes down to drilling these exploratory wells, which is why David has spent $6 million. Once you’ve got through that, and you’re still going, and it’s very positive, now you know you can sink some deeper wells in. You choose the diameter of those wells and the flow rate of those wells, not necessarily matching your customer.

I’ll just say one more thing here as a chemical engineer. If somebody can’t get off natural gas 100 percent, but they can get off of it 40, 50, 75 percent and then have to peak with natural gas, that is still a 75 percent reduction in carbon. It cannot be all or nothing.

Some places will be magical. Other places just need to start, and maybe the other part of their energy is electricity from B.C. Hydro or it’s renewable natural gas or hydrogen. But to not do any geothermal at all, when it can actually solve something 100 percent or at least complete whatever percentage it’s taking, doesn’t seem like the right place that we’re in today.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Henry. Final question.

H. Yao: Because I’ve been listening to your response for a second, I’m going to ask a question that’s not about geothermal. Are you talking about pumping water in and being able to have water ejecting out of the system?

[5:35 p.m.]

Is there any potential application utilizing similar technology or data that has learned through geothermal and can help us look after our underground water supply, or will it address the potential floods and be able to find a way to actually redirect those flood waters in a way that can be protective for future usage?

A. Thompson: You know, Henry, that’s such an insightful comment. In northeast B.C., we’re talking about all that data being there. Everywhere else where people are exploring for geothermal…. For example, the project we’re talking about, we’ve discovered the data.

We have people like the Ministry of Transportation asking to share the data with us, certainly the Ministry of Environment, because it’s brand-new data they can use for other purposes, like the planning you just talked about.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Alison and David, thank you very much for your presentation. It gives a new meaning to a treasure map and how that research comes around. Any time we can talk about a ring of fire and then bring Johnny Cash to the forefront, it’s a good day. It’s a good day.

Our next presenter is Brandi Trudell-Davis, Terrace Women’s Resource Centre Society.

Brandi, you will have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes of questions and/or comments.

TERRACE WOMEN’S RESOURCE
CENTRE SOCIETY

B. Trudell-Davis: Wow, what an act to follow. Holy smokes. Mine is nothing like theirs.

Thank you. Hello. Thank you for this. My name is Brandi Trudell-Davis. I am here as the executive director for Terrace Women’s Resource Centre. The centre has been providing resources and referrals to equity-deserving populations since the 1980s through grants and donations.

I’m sorry. I’m super nervous. Don’t take it personally.

Thank you so much for this opportunity to advocate and speak about the importance of creating sustainability in the province’s non-profit organizations and charity sector.

NPOs and charities such as Terrace Women’s Resource Centre carry the burden of providing a consistent yet flexible structure to address the complex needs associated with the social determinants of health across lifespans and all economic landscapes. We’re often left to fend for ourselves in researching, applying, competing and fundraising to keep our administration going, to support our vital programs and services.

As a requirement to apply for funding, we are often told that we need to have administrative oversight, yet the costs associated with contract administration, auditing, financial oversight, governance, maintenance and administration is limited to less than 20 percent, and often less than 10 percent, of funding. This means that organizations need to compete for more and more funding, and we often have to reshape our mandates, visions and values to fit into several different funding applications.

In 2019, a report published by Imagine Canada reported that Canada’s non-profit organizations and charity sectors make up more than 8 percent of our gross domestic product and employ 2.4 million Canadians. This employment rate is higher than that of oil, gas, automobile manufacturing and forestry, and we have no representation. Despite this valuable contribution to Canada’s economy, non-profit organizations and charities are struggling to keep our doors open, now more than ever.

I sit here in front of you all nervously to ask for budgetary considerations to provide access to stable, multi-year core funding for well-established non-profit organizations and charities; allow for a far larger percentage of government grants and funding to be allocated specifically for non-program costs associated with the administration and oversight; and lastly, to establish a path forward to have a home within government where our NPOs and charity needs can be adequately and fairly advocated, supported and funded within policy mandates, legislation and initiatives.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to advocate for a better funding support structure for B.C.’s vital NPOs and charities.

M. Starchuk (Chair): You nailed it. Absolutely.

[5:40 p.m.]

H. Yao: First of all, thank you so much. I promise you I didn’t notice any nervousness. My colleagues here all know that when I get nervous, I’m a far worse speaker than you are. I promise.

I do want to first comment. I do encourage you to communicate with…. We do have a parliamentary secretary who specializes in the non-profit sector, I think. Her name is Megan Dykeman. I would encourage you to build a connection with her.

Thank you so much for pointing out all three points. It was a very consistent theme among all the non-profit presenters. I’ve heard you mention 20 percent to 10 percent. I think 20 percent was actually one of the recommendations earlier that thought it was generous enough for government to have 20 percent focused on administrative costs, while 80 percent is focused on operation costs.

Obviously, based on the presentation, 20 percent isn’t sufficient. Do you have, maybe, a different formula that we can consider so that when we present it, we have more of an accompanying number to work with?

B. Trudell-Davis: I think it’s individualized. I think it depends on the structure of the non-profit organization. We are a small non-profit organization. We don’t have core funding. We don’t have access to core funding, whereas some other NPOs and charities do have some core funding through B.C. Housing and other initiatives. So I can’t give you a number specifically.

I would say something different than would probably be reasonable for another organization. I think it needs to have some kind of flexibility to be dependent on what the organization is.

G. Chow: Same question about your main costs, 10 percent to 20 percent. I think for a lot of the well-established international organizations, they will list about 10 percent to 12 percent. But I think for smaller non-profits, obviously, that’s going to be difficult to achieve. It may go up to 20 percent.

So I see your point in terms of…. If you only have three employees, then obviously you have to apply for funding, for grants. You’re obviously going to eat up a lot of time on that.

I appreciate your presentation. Thank you.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I’m actually going to go back a bit more to the same question.

I think one of the topics we had a conversation around is that often we fundraise, or you’ll have a donation from the private sector, or, for other foundations, they tend to be focused less on administrative work. They want to see more money go to operations.

Obviously, one of the reasons why you’re here is hoping that government can step up and allow your non-profit to have core funding so that you guys can have external funding support for programs.

You also mentioned multi-year. I wonder if it would be possible for you have a written submission later on to give us, maybe, an estimated percentage, you could say — something to work with. If you don’t, I apologize. If you can follow up with a percentage…. I think we could almost pick a number.

The second question is: for multi-year funding, are you asking for three years, similar to everyone else, or do you think three years is not long enough? I notice other organizations spoke to me about that. If we could have a centralized database, so we don’t have non-profits filling out the same exact information every year or someone who copy-pastes from previous applications to reduce the workload. You guys can spend less money on administrative and less time focused on applications and more time actually managing the organization. Obviously, your feedback will frame the conversation.

B. Trudell-Davis: Okay, yes. Thank you. Where would I submit that?

Back to Finance. Okay.

B. Stewart: Just further to Henry’s point, just for the Terrace Women’s Resource Centre Society, TWRCS, what’s the amount of money that you need? Give us a number.

B. Trudell-Davis: Ours is $80,000 a year. We own our own building, and sometimes we are actually almost penalized because we own our own building. It takes us…. Just administration cost and O and M and that is $80,000 a year. Then above and beyond that would be like the administrative costs that we can’t actually put into funding. We have to get more and more funding packages to be able to fund just the finance, the executive director and the director of operations.

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right, Brandi, thank you for your presentation this afternoon. Thank you for being so calm and so collected and not having a worry in the world. More importantly, thank you for what you do for the people in this community.

It is very important to have people like yourself, and Sharon as well, looking out for those people that are less fortunate in the community here. Thank you.

[5:45 p.m.]

I am going to announce our final speaker for the day — Bruno Belanger, Kitselas Development Corp.

You are up.

Interjections.

M. Starchuk (Chair): With those pleasantries, if you want to have a seat. You have five minutes for your presentation, and then there are five minutes for questions and/or comments.

Bruno, the floor is yours.

KITSELAS DEVELOPMENT

B. Belanger: Good evening, members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Thank you for the invitation to share this priority of our consideration with you this evening.

My name is Bruno Belanger. I am here in my capacity as a director of Kitselas Development Corp. Kitselas Development Corp. is wholly owned by the First Nations, established with a mandate to help Kitselas First Nation build healthy and prosperous communities through business development and operations and supporting Kitselas members participating in local broader economies.

Kitselas Development Corp. is in the business arm of Kitselas First Nation, with corporate offices located in the area of Terrace, commonly referred to as Kalsfi. Kitselas First Nation is a progressive nation, and we’re open for business. Kitselas expects to conclude negotiations on the treaty by the end of this year, by the end of December. David Try is here with us this evening. He’s our senior negotiator for Kitselas and is here with us.

Kitselas Development Corp. owns a 172-acre parcel within the Skeena Industrial Development Park. Now, that’s fronting Highway 37, near the airport. Skeena Industrial Development Park is approximately 2,400 acres in size. Strategically located near the Northwest Regional Airport between Terrace and Kitimat, along Highway 37, it’s ideal for a broad range of industrial development.

Within our parcel of land, we would propose to establish a foreign trade zone point which would overlay a proposed logistics park, warehousing and distribution centre. What is a foreign trade zone? Well, according to the government of Canada website, a foreign trade zone is for a short, general….

It refers to a specific location within the country that is officially designated for eligibility for tariff and tax exemptions with respect to our purchase of importation of raw materials, components and finished goods, such as materials, goods to be stored, processed and assembled in our free trade zone for re-export, in which case, taxes and duties generally would not apply, or for entry into the domestic market, in which case taxes and duties would be deferred until the time of entry.

We recommend that the committee consider allocation of funding in Budget 2024 to support our review, analysis and investigation and explore the merits of establishing a foreign trade zone point within the property which is owned by the Kitselas Development Corp.

The amount we’re looking at is $325,000, and the funding request would help defray costs associated — conducting a feasibility study and assessment of business, $75,000; development of marketing program, including website development and maintenance, $50,000; exploring and coordinating of trade missions to explore international business opportunities involving delegations of business persons, governments, including Kitselas Nation leadership or designates. Such a mission could include ASEAN countries, such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as China and Japan.

[5:50 p.m.]

The foreign trade zone point administration…. We’d be looking at accounting and legal of around $100,000, gaining a comprehensive working knowledge of Canada’s foreign trade zone–type programs; communicating, meeting with Western Economic Diversification Canada, the regional development agency responsible for intake requests to establish a foreign trade zone and assets on ongoing programs administration; and engaging and collaborating with local private sector business, local government and city regional districts.

Now, we have toured other sites and are confident that this will work in the northwest. We have identified a sister city in China by the name of Three Dragon Town and a foreign trade zone of Tianjin free trade zone in Tianjin port, Dongjiang area of China, that is committed to working with us.

A foreign trade zone point located in Kitselas would provide a centralized point of access and various trades-specific government programs and incentives designed to facilitate trade to commerce in locations strategically based in northern British Columbia.

In close proximity to the world-renowned.… We have a seaport in Prince Rupert, a railroad network, a regional airport. We’re in the process right now of having an inland port built here in Terrace. A foreign trade point would help contribute to the vibrant local economy, benefiting not only the Kitselas First Nations but surrounding areas and community by providing employment, opportunities of skills training, capacity development and all the while supporting and advocating for Canada and B.C. as a safe, secure jurisdiction in which to invest.

Now, we do understand that this may be the first nations-led foreign trade zone. Your support of the initiative in this step towards economic reconciliation is something that matters to the entire region.

Once again I would like to thank you for letting me speak this evening. I might still have a couple of minutes here. As you know, our Premier Eby right now is in the Asian market, and he is working on foreign trade looking at investing in this marketplace, right?

He’s been there for two weeks, and he’s been in Singapore, Thailand. He’s had various stops around there. I believe if our Premier knew what we were asking for, for this area of northern B.C., it would really help him in order to move forward with getting other countries to look at our area in northern British Columbia.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Bruno.

H. Yao: Bear with me and my ignorance here. This sounds like an ask where you need to go through the federal government, doesn’t it?

B. Belanger: The federal government?

H. Yao: Pardon me, but I’m not exactly an expert in this area. You’re talking about a foreign trade zone that’s being established.

B. Belanger: Yeah. There is one right now, I believe, in Prince George. I believe, right across Canada, there’s a total of six of them. Basically what we’re looking at…. We’re looking for the funding for this area to move forward.

We’ve developed the land. When you are ready to fly out of Terrace here and you’re going by the airport, you’ll notice on the left-hand side, the land is totally cleared. It’s all ready to move, and we’re sitting on that land. We really want to do something with that land. And establishing a foreign trade zone in this area, having a container port in Prince Rupert, where we’re a day faster sailing to the Asian markets, right…?

Right now we’re so busy. Apparently, they’re expanding their port in Prince Rupert. We have a rail system where we’re shipping containers all the way down to Chicago.

Then we have the new inland port that’s being developed on Keith Avenue. You’re probably aware of it. It’s a very large inland port that’s being developed right there. We have the property, and we just want to move forward with it and develop that property so that British Columbia will do extremely well, especially with the Premier going overseas right now and looking at trade. That’s what he’s doing. He wants to have other countries invest in our province, and we have the property for them to do that.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. This is just for analysis and investigation into implementing a foreign trade zone here. It’s in Terrace, you said?

B. Belanger: Yes, in Terrace. It would be the first First Nations trade zone in Canada also.

[5:55 p.m.]

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): I guess a couple of things here. I would imagine, with something of this size, it would include a lot of infrastructure. I mean, there’s customs and things like that, right? You’d have to set up offices, security, that kind of thing.

Also, what would be unique to this area, to Terrace, that couldn’t be provided in Prince Rupert or some other port?

B. Belanger: Well, what’s unique about here is that we have already cleared the land. We have all the acreage. If we need to expand any further than that, we actually have additional land with the city of Terrace that we could turn around and expand even further with that. Like I said, we’re ready for business.

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation. Having just heard from the geothermal group, do you see a synergy there that you could describe in terms of ability to attract industry to there?

B. Belanger: There could be. I haven’t discussed the geothermal. I am quite new on the board. I was only appointed about two months ago.

R. Leonard: Yet here you are. Well done.

B. Belanger: Well, I retired from my other job. As you know, when you retire you’ve got to keep yourself busy. Then I was asked by the Chief and council members if I would like to join them with their Kitselas Development.

I’ve really enjoyed the first two months that I’ve been with them. It has been quite eye-opening, working with the First Nations people. It’s unbelievable, the culture and the growth factor that they have.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, Bruno, thank you very much for your presentation and your enthusiasm over a very unique project that is before us.

B. Belanger: Yeah, because up north here, we have the golden egg, as you can see from everything that’s been happening with the LNG — the $41 billion right there. Then we have the Haisla who are moving forward. We have the Nisg̱a’a who also want to move forward. There is so much activity happening here. Yeah, that’s why I’m so excited.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Before we close it off, I just want to make a personal comment.

My general comments to close off the day. Thanks to the community of Kitimat for coming out and informing us on what’s going out here.

I also want to make sure I say thanks to the MLA for the area, Ellis Ross, and maybe more so to CA Gina Versteege, who probably did more of the work than Ellis did.

Thank you very much.

Interjection.

M. Starchuk (Chair): We know she did. Yes, absolutely, and a great job.

As well, I would be remiss if I did not mention the people that assist this committee, which are Karan Riarh and Emma Curtis from the Parliamentary Committees Office, and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services, which provides us with the recordings and the documents that come with all of this.

We will adjourn now before we head off to Prince George tomorrow.

A motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 5:59 p.m.