09/01/2026
City of Terrace and District of Kitimat Face Questions Over $46,200 Labour-Market Study and Consultant Selection
Skeena News examines the funding, history, organizations conducting the research, procurement trail and public disclosure surrounding a new regional workforce study
TERRACE & KITIMAT, B.C. — A new regional labour-market study involving the City of Terrace and District of Kitimat is examining workforce challenges across the region, with the majority of the project's funding coming from Northern Development Initiative Trust (NDIT).
The project represents approximately $46,200 in total funding, including approximately $42,000 from NDIT and the remainder from municipal contributions.
The study is intended to provide updated information about labour-market conditions, workforce availability, skills shortages, employer needs, mobility between communities and related issues.
There is little dispute that these are important issues for Northwest British Columbia.
However, Skeena News has been examining how the project came together, why the study was commissioned, who was selected to conduct it, what previous research exists, and how much information about the project has been made available to the public.
Our review has identified a number of areas where additional information from the municipalities would help residents understand the decision-making process.
This article is therefore not an allegation of wrongdoing. It is an examination of public funding, procurement, corporate involvement and municipal accountability.
A region that has already studied its workforce
The current project needs to be viewed in the context of previous labour-market research.
Northwest B.C. has undertaken significant workforce studies in the past.
In 2017–18, regional organizations undertook labour-market research involving the Lower Skeena area. The project was supported by approximately $248,525 in provincial funding.
Kitimat's historical municipal records also document involvement in labour-market research involving Kitimat Valley Institute and Rio Tinto.
The City of Terrace subsequently participated in regional workforce and resident-attraction initiatives that drew upon previous labour-market research.
The existence of previous research does not mean a new study is unnecessary.
Labour markets change, particularly in a region experiencing major industrial investment, demographic changes, housing pressures and shifts in employment demand.
But it does make the rationale for the new study an important part of the public record.
What information from previous studies is now outdated?
What information was missing?
What new questions does the current study seek to answer?
And how will the new research be used differently from previous studies?
These are questions Skeena News intends to put directly to the municipalities.
The NDIT funding
The current study is being supported through Northern Development Initiative Trust's Labour Market Research Plansprogram.
The program is designed to assist eligible local governments with labour-market research and identify local employment challenges and opportunities.
The program can provide funding of up to $50,000 and up to 90 per cent of eligible project costs.
For this project, the research reviewed by Skeena News indicates approximately:
Funding sourceAmount
Northern Development Initiative Trust $42,000
Municipal contribution Approximately $4,200
TotalApproximately $46,200
This means NDIT is providing the overwhelming majority of the project's funding.
It is therefore important to understand that the money is being provided through a public economic-development funding program rather than representing a private expenditure.
The funding source does not, by itself, indicate any problem with the project.
It does, however, make transparency around the expenditure particularly relevant.
Who initiated the project?
Our research indicates that the District of Kitimat was the applicant for the NDIT funding.
Kitimat's December 2025 council process included consideration of the proposed labour-market research before the NDIT application deadline.
The documentation indicates that municipal staff had already developed a proposed project scope and obtained a consultant quote.
The City of Terrace is participating in the regional initiative.
This creates an important distinction that the municipalities should clarify publicly:
Was this originally a District of Kitimat initiative that Terrace subsequently joined, or was it developed jointly by both municipalities from the beginning?
The distinction matters because it goes directly to understanding who established the scope, who identified the consultant and how the participating municipalities made their decisions.
The organizations behind the research
The research conducted by Skeena News has identified ClimateDoor and Unify Partners in connection with the project.
The corporate history of these organizations is more complicated than their names might initially suggest.
ClimateDoor describes itself as a Vancouver-based organization involved in business development, capital raising, government funding, Indigenous partnerships and commercialization.
Unify Partners has publicly focused on areas including Indigenous economic development, workforce development, skills inventories, training and employment pathways.
ClimateDoor's own website has described Unify Partners as its sister organization.
However, corporate research reviewed by Skeena News indicates that Unify Partners Inc. changed its legal corporate name to ClimateDoor Partners Inc. in September 2024.
This is significant because the public-facing names and the underlying legal corporate structure may not be identical.
The municipalities should therefore clarify the precise contractual arrangement.
Who is the legal contractor?
Is the agreement with:
ClimateDoor Partners Inc.?
Unify Partners?
Another ClimateDoor entity?
And what is the precise role of each organization?
What experience does the consultant bring?
It is important to present this fairly.
Our research did identify relevant workforce and Indigenous economic-development experience associated with the Unify/ClimateDoor operation.
The organization's documented work includes workforce assessments, employment pathways, training alignment, skills-related initiatives and Indigenous community economic-development projects.
That experience could be relevant to the current project.
At the same time, ClimateDoor's historical public profile has included a substantial emphasis on commercialization, capital raising, government funding and business development.
This makes it appropriate for taxpayers to understand what specific experience and qualifications were considered when the consultant was selected for this particular regional labour-market study.
The question is not whether the organization has any relevant experience.
The question is:
What criteria did the municipalities use to determine that this organization was the appropriate provider for this project?
How was the consultant selected?
This is one of the most significant areas identified in our research.
Skeena News has not located a publicly available competitive RFP, RFQ, bid evaluation matrix or list of competing proposals for this particular study within the municipal material reviewed.
At the same time, the available documentation indicates that a consultant quote had already been obtained during the development of the project.
The absence of a publicly located RFP does not establish that no competitive procurement process occurred.
There may be procurement procedures, quotations or internal records that are not contained in the publicly available council documents reviewed.
That is why we are asking the municipalities directly.
What procurement method was used?
Was the consultant:
selected through an open RFP;
selected through invited quotations;
selected through a direct award;
selected through an existing standing arrangement;
or selected through another procurement mechanism?
If multiple organizations were considered:
How many?
If proposals were evaluated:
What criteria were used?
If a direct award was made:
What was the justification?
These are ordinary procurement questions when public funds are involved.
Why an outside consultant?
The study is regional, but the organizations conducting the work are based outside the immediate Terrace–Kitimat community.
That is not inherently problematic.
There are circumstances where outside specialists provide expertise that is not readily available locally.
Nevertheless, Northwest B.C. has considerable local expertise.
The region has people with decades of experience in:
resource industries;
LNG;
construction;
forestry;
mining;
transportation;
trades;
education;
Indigenous economic development;
business;
workforce development;
regional planning.
There are also institutions and individuals who have participated in previous labour-market research.
Skeena News therefore believes it is reasonable to ask whether local researchers, regional institutions or local experts were considered as part of the process.
If they were considered, the public should understand how.
If they weren't, the municipalities should explain why an outside provider was considered the most appropriate option.
What exactly is being researched?
The project is intended to produce a regional picture of labour-market conditions.
The research materials identify areas including:
demographic and workforce trends;
occupational shortages;
workforce projections;
commuting and inter-community mobility;
housing and labour supply;
training requirements;
employer needs;
recruitment and retention;
recommendations for future workforce initiatives.
The project is therefore broader than simply asking employers whether they have difficulty finding workers.
The methodology matters.
For example, public references to 100+ local voices participating in the research raise a straightforward methodological question:
Who participated?
Were they:
employers;
employees;
residents;
business owners;
community organizations;
Indigenous organizations;
educators;
government representatives?
And how many participants came from each community?
If participation was voluntary, how will the researchers account for self-selection?
These details will determine how useful the final findings are.
The public release of the research
The study is expected to progress through 2026, with presentation of the findings expected around September.
That creates another important accountability issue.
Residents should know in advance:
Will the complete final report be publicly released?
Will the municipalities publish:
the methodology;
participation statistics;
survey questions;
findings;
recommendations;
limitations;
funding information?
Will the underlying data be made available where privacy permits?
And perhaps most importantly:
What will Terrace and Kitimat actually do with the findings?
A labour-market report only has value if it informs policy, workforce development, housing planning, economic development or other measurable action.
Public money requires a public record
There is nothing unusual about governments commissioning research.
Municipalities routinely hire consultants when specialized expertise is required.
Nor is there anything inherently inappropriate about using NDIT funding to conduct labour-market research.
The issue Skeena News is examining is transparency surrounding the decision.
Residents should be able to understand the chain:
Who identified the problem?
Who proposed the project?
Who applied for funding?
Who designed the scope?
Who selected the consultant?
What alternatives were considered?
What did the consultant propose?
How much will be paid?
What exactly will be delivered?
When will the public receive the final product?
Those questions should be answerable through public records and straightforward responses from the municipalities.
Skeena News seeking answers
Skeena News will be formally contacting both the City of Terrace and the District of Kitimat with questions concerning:
The origin of the project.
The rationale for commissioning a new study.
Previous labour-market studies considered.
The procurement process.
The consultant-selection process.
The number of consultants considered.
The evaluation criteria.
The legal identity of the contractor.
The respective roles of ClimateDoor and Unify Partners.
The total contractual value.
The NDIT funding and municipal contribution.
The consideration of local researchers and institutions.
The research methodology.
The meaning and composition of the “100+ local voices.”
The expected completion date.
The public-release process for the final report.
The intended policy actions following the study.
We will also be asking the municipalities to provide any publicly releasable procurement, contract and project documents that are not currently accessible through their online council records.
Why this matters to Northwest B.C.
This story is ultimately bigger than one consultant or one $46,200 project.
Northwest B.C. is experiencing enormous economic and demographic changes.
Decisions being made today about workforce development, housing, immigration, training, infrastructure and economic development will affect communities for years.
That makes reliable research valuable.
But it also makes good research, transparent procurement and public accountability equally important.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to choose between supporting economic development and asking questions about how public money is spent.
They should be able to do both.
Skeena News will publish the responses received from the City of Terrace and District of Kitimat and update this story as additional documentation becomes available.
Editor's note
Skeena News has not concluded that any party involved in the project has acted improperly. The purpose of this report is to document the publicly available information, identify gaps in the public record and seek clarification from the organizations responsible for the project.
ClimateDoor, Unify Partners, the City of Terrace, District of Kitimat and Northern Development Initiative Trust will be given an opportunity to respond to the questions raised in this report. Any substantive responses received will be reported accurately and in context.
Mayor Sean Bujtas Mayor Phil Germuth
