At a time when the city is facing an increased threat from wildfires and other communities have been devastated by similar disasters, city council voted down an opportunity to apply for climate change mitigation funding through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC).
The funding, totalling $11.5 million, was to be divided among nine Canadian municipalities, one of which would have been Prince George. The city would not have had to contribute financially beyond some limited staff time.
The project would involve climate change adaptation and mitigation research over five years — an area in which Prince George has been actively engaged, particularly in wildfire mitigation. The research would have seen Canadian municipalities partner with counterparts in Tunisia.
Despite these clear benefits and the opportunity to bring outside funding to the city, the motion was narrowly defeated. This decision highlights a rift within council regarding the city’s priorities and its approach to addressing the challenges it faces. The rejection also suggests a reluctance to embrace investments that could benefit the city, despite the success of initiatives like the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC), which has proven that research is an economic driver for the community.
The proposal, put forward by Coun. Cori Ramsay, outlined a relatively low-risk initiative. If successful, Prince George would not only have received a portion of the available funding but would also have had the chance to collaborate on climate adaptation and mitigation projects with a developing country — a benefit for both nations.
Mayor Simon Yu, a strong supporter of the application, pointed out that Prince George has been recognized as one of Canada’s most progressive cities in terms of climate efforts. He noted that the project aligned well with the city’s strategic goals.
Even Coun. Garth Frizzell, with his experience working on international partnerships, saw the potential to promote democratic governance and international diplomacy while addressing local challenges.
However, despite these advantages, council rejected the proposal.
The reasons for this decision are troubling, especially given the support the proposal received from several councillors. Coun. Brian Skakun argued that the city should focus on more immediate local issues, such as crime and the fentanyl crisis, rather than pursuing “extraordinary” international partnerships. While local issues are undeniably important, climate change is a global problem that demands global solutions. Rejecting such partnerships — particularly when they offer an opportunity to enhance local climate research — risks leaving Prince George behind in addressing the challenges it is already facing.
Coun. Kyle Sampson raised concerns about the “cost” to staff resources, despite the proposal clearly stating that there would be no direct cost to the city. Ramsay clarified that her involvement would be voluntary and that previous FCM projects had required minimal staff time. City manager Walter Babicz supported this, assuring council that while staff resources are limited, the project aligned with the city’s strategic plan and could be accommodated.
In fact, FCM has previously praised Prince George’s district energy system and wildfire mitigation efforts, demonstrating that the city has the expertise to contribute to the project without overburdening staff.
By rejecting the proposal, council has missed an opportunity to leverage the city’s strengths for both local and international benefit.
The decision raises an important question: Why are we so quick to reject “free money” that could directly benefit the city’s climate mitigation efforts? This project was a chance for Prince George to contribute to global research while gaining valuable funding and insights to improve its own climate initiatives.
Coun. Ron Polillo, citing concerns over the five-year commitment, and Coun. Trudy Klassen, who did not see the urgency of the project, ultimately voted against the proposal.
It is clear that the rejection was not due to a lack of resources but rather a reluctance to engage in a project that could have long-term benefits for both Prince George and the world.
The motion was defeated by a narrow margin, with councillors Bennett, Klassen, Polillo, Sampson, and Skakun voting against it.
The message sent to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Global Affairs Canada is clear: This council is divided on how best to address the challenges facing our community, and Prince George is not interested in research funding being invested here.
Let’s encourage our councillors to make more proactive decisions in the future — ones that prioritize the long-term well-being of our city and its future investment opportunities.
Have your say with a letter to the editor: editor@pgcitizen.ca.
