Media Statement: November 3, 2014
Made-in-BC Environmental Assessment Required for Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project
For immediate release

Victoria, B.C. – With evidence mounting that the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline has lost its legitimacy, Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the BC Green Party, is calling on the BC government to immediately issue the 30 day notice, required to cancel its equivalency agreement with the Federal government, and launch its own, separate, environmental assessment process.
“In the past week alone we have seen Kinder Morgan sue Burnaby residents for trespassing on parkland and one of the most credible intervenors, Marc Eliesen, fully withdraw from the hearing process,” says Andrew Weaver. “These are the latest indications that British Columbians simply do not trust the federal review process.”

Mr. Eliesen, an expert with over 40 years experience in the energy sector, including as a former board member of Suncor Energy, former CEO of B.C. Hydro, former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and deputy minister in several federal and provincial governments, issued a scathing letter to the National Energy Board outlining the reasons for his exit. His letter cites concerns that the NEB is failing to fulfill its role as an impartial, transparent review body.

This comes following months of jurisdictional disputes in the City of Burnaby and ongoing frustration expressed by other intervenors over a flawed hearing process.

As the only B.C. MLA with intervenor status in the hearings, Andrew Weaver has been among those intervenors who have been advocating for a better process.

“We have been voicing our concerns about the review process for months and every time we do we get shut down by the National Energy Board. At some stage you have to recognize that the federal process is simply stacked against British Columbians and the only way to change that is for our provincial government to step up and reclaim its right to have its own, made-in-BC hearing process.”

The June 2010 equivalency agreement signed between the federal government and province set the review process for major pipeline and energy projects under the the National Energy Board, with final approval to be determined by the federal cabinet. The equivalency agreement for the Trans Mountain project can be cancelled with 30 days notice.

“The BC government needs to stand up for British Columbians,” says Weaver. “What we need is a made-in-BC environmental assessment that is controlled by British Columbians to ensure our concerns get respected and that our questions get answered.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382

This is the ninth in our series of stories celebrating the outstanding accomplishments of youth in our community. These inspirational young adults are enriching our lives with their passion and commitment to the betterment of society.

Ana Adams

We arranged to meet Ana for coffee at Pure Vanilla on Cadboro Bay Road one day after school. It didn’t take us long to realize that she was an incredibly well rounded, generous and caring young woman who already had a clear sense of purpose and direction.  Ana’s dream is to become a pediatric physiotherapist and after interviewing her for a little over an hour, it’s pretty clear to us why.

Ana was born and raised in Victoria, attending St. Patrick’s School from Kindergarten to Grade 7, Monterey Middle School for Grade 8 and the Oak Bay High, where she is currently in Grade 12. In addition to maintaining an outstanding first class academic record and winning a prestigious Oak Bay High School Green and White Award last year, Ana is engaged in numerous extracurricular activities.

Ana has played field hockey since Grade 7 and has always competed at a very high level.  She served as captain of the Under 15 BC provincial team and presently captains her high school team. Last year, Ana played on the under 18 BC provincial team. Playing at this level requires a high degree of commitment – including trips every weekend to Vancouver for practices during late spring and early summer. Ana currently plays with the Lynx Women’s Division 1 field hockey team as a midfielder. She has had to overcome severe stress injuries in both hips, but she persevered and has since recovered from these injuries. For Ana, playing sports is also about giving back and so since 2011, she has coached in the Under 10 age group of the Victoria junior field hockey spring league.

For the past three years Ana has acted as a Peer Buddy in the Best Buddies Program whose goal is providing inclusivity and friendship for students of all abilities. She’s also presently active in the Youth Against Cancer club that runs throughout the school year promoting cancer awareness and holding fundraising campaigns. This year the club is spearheading an awareness campaign focusing on the harmful effects of flavoured tobacco products. Ana was also involved in the annual Oak Bay Tour de Rock Cops for Cancer campaign – a bottle drive she organized brought in $5,500.00 of the total $40,000 raised by the school this year. She also helped with a community event at Willows Beach, a car wash and bake sale for the cause.

Ana has been leader of the Oak Bay Youth Outreach Program, where 15-20 students research the work of different societies and not for profit organizations in our community in order to determine where they might donate a $2,500.00 grant from the Victoria Foundation’s Vital Youth Program. Last year, the beneficiary was the Multiple Sclerosis Society. They Youth Outreach Program also raises awareness in the school of different issues facing the broader community.

Ana, along with 3 peers, also won $5,000.00 in the Youth in Philanthropy initiative. This school-based initiative involves choosing a charity and pitching it to judges while competing with others doing the same for their selected charity.  The Mary Manning Centre, which provides child abuse prevention and counselling services, was the beneficiary of the $5,000 that Ana’s team won.  Ana noted that she was “terrified about public speaking, but she got through it” and she values the experience she gained from going beyond her comfort zone with this project.

A “Hero Holiday” school trip to Mexico last year, which Ana described as “the best experience of my life”, reinforced Ana’s desire to work with children, particularly those in developing nations. The Oak Bay High School group traveled to Mexico to help build houses for two families. Ana detailed how she also spent many hours with two young girls (aged 4 and 7 years) with whom she ended up becoming very attached. Initially the young girls were very shy and wary of the unfamiliar visitors and their oddities like water bottles and sunglasses. Ana fondly recalled how the four year old, Estefania, would nervously peer over a cloth fence and watch the Oak Bay students from afar. But Ana, through showing the girls pictures from her digital camera, was quickly able to make them feel comfortable and safe. By the end of the first day, Estefania and Ana were friends. By the second day, Estefania, became so fond of Ana that she screamed her name and ran from a nearby field upon seeing her, and subsequently jumped into her arms. On Ana’s last day in Mexico, Estefania presented her with a little yellow flower that she tucked in Ana’s hair.

Ana also relayed to us a story about how Estefania, the four year old, gave her a rusty blue hair clip. “It was very emotional, one of the best moments of my life” when the young impoverished girl passed along to Ana one of her valued possessions. Ana enjoyed being able to help the seven year old girl with her homework – they sat on the dirt floor of her home and worked on numbers and Ana taught her some English phrases. The girl’s grandmother, who was in poor health, appreciated Ana’s assistance so much that she presented her with a handmade bracelet. Ana told us how much the bracelet means to her and that she rarely wears it because she wants to keep it forever as a keepsake.

Ana has already “done her homework” and extensively researched universities both directly, and through attending Canadian University information events. Upon graduating from high school, Ana’s dream would be to be accepted into a university kinesiology or human biology program, with the eventual goal of becoming a pediatric physiotherapist. When we asked why, she said, “I love children, interacting with them and getting to know them”. Upon completion of her training, Ana would like to spend time working with children in a developing nation. Clearly inspired by her “hero holiday”, Ana would like to learn more about global health issues and international development. Ideally, she would like to work with children who have been affected by war in association with Doctors without Borders.

We asked Ana if there was anyone in particular that inspired her. She responded that there were aspects and attributes of many different people that inspired her and there were “lots of awesome teachers”; she couldn’t single anyone out. She was also quick to note that she was “surrounded by amazing students”.  Ana is humble, thoughtful and compassionate, yet clearly capable of competing at the highest levels in sports, academics and leadership. She’ll be an exceptionally strong candidate for both athletic and academic entry scholarships from universities across North America. And wherever she ends up, it’s clear to us that she’ll enrich the lives of those around her through her dedication and commitment to her community.

Today in the legislature I was up during Question Period. I took the opportunity to probe the government’s thinking about taking on substantive public debt to construct Site C when there are more cost effective, and less financially risky options available. My concern is the effect burgeoning debt will have on our overall credit rating. If our credit rating drops, the cost of debt servicing will go up thereby affecting government finances. At the end of the day, the ratepayer will also be on the hook for any cost overruns.

MY QUESTION

On April 19 of 2010, I, along with numerous others, travelled to Hudson’s Hope to hear the then Premier, Gordon Campbell, announce that the proposed Site C dam project was moving to the environmental assessment stage. In 2010 the projected construction cost for the dam was $6.6 billion, but by May 2011, that cost had increased to $7.9 billion, a 20 percent increase.

There’s considerable upside uncertainty regarding these costs that could easily reach $10 billion to $12 billion. The final investment decision with respect to Site C now rests with cabinet.

In the past our government has appropriately celebrated the fact that B.C. has maintained a triple-A credit rating. However, in May of this year Moody’s downgraded our outlook from stable to negative, citing concerns about the increasing provincial debt.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Is the minister as troubled as I am that the approval of the Site C dam could lead to the downgrading of our credit rating that, in turn, would raise the costs of servicing of all of our provincial debt?

MINISTER DE JONG’s RESPONSE

The member correctly identifies the pride we do have for our triple-A credit rating. It’s a form of report card issued by international agencies, a comparative assessment of how we’re doing, and the marks they have given us the past number of years places us in very, very exclusive company.

Commercial Crowns, like B.C. Hydro, are assessed as self-supported debt rather than taxpayer-supported debt. The other thing I can say to the member is that B.C. Hydro has over the past number of years been assessed a flow-through rating, which means they have the same triple-A rating as the B.C. government. Now, some rating agencies are now extending their analysis to extend to total provincial debt, including self-supporting Crown corporations.

The Minister of Energy has — and will, if given the opportunity — continued to point out the basis upon which a final decision on this project will be made, but I can assure the member and all members that affordability of debt will be one of those considerations.

MY SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION

We know there are affordable alternatives to Site C, and these alternatives would allow us to meet present and future energy needs without running the risk of incurring increased public debt and potentially damaging our triple-A credit rating.

The fact is that circumstances have changed since 2010. That’s why I no longer believe it’s fiscally prudent to move forward with this project.

In the last few years the costs of wind energy and solar PV have dropped dramatically. In addition, just last month the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association released a report outlining the unheralded potential of B.C.’s yet untapped geothermal resource.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will the government consider expanding the mandate of B.C. Hydro to allow them to develop our geothermal resources? And will the government task B.C. Hydro with issuing new calls for power at a fixed price below the projected cost of power produced from Site C so that the market can prove up these cheaper alternatives — and, subsequently, protect the ratepayer from unnecessary rate hikes?

MINISTER BENNETT’s RESPONSE

Thank you to the member for the question. It’s actually, I think, a positive to be given the opportunity to talk about our electricity policy in the province and how we’re going to obtain the electricity that we’re going to need over the next 20 years. The estimate is that we’re going to need about 40 percent more electricity than we generate today over the next 20 years.

The province obviously has some choices. If you look at the ten-year rates plan that we announced a year ago, you’ll see that we’ve already made some choices in terms of priorities.

Our number one choice in terms of meeting that new demand is conservation. B.C. Hydro is going to attempt to meet the growth in demand through conservation, to the extent of 78 percent of the growth in demand by conservation.

In reference to that same plan that we announced a year ago, we are also going to meet that demand by reinvesting in assets that were built a long time ago on the Peace River system and the Columbia River system and try to generate as much electricity as we can with the current generation assets that we have.

The third thing that we’re going to do is to allow a number of IPP projects that are already in the pipeline to be finished, to be constructed, and we will acquire that electricity as well.

Even after those three responses to this growth and demand, we are going to need at least 1,100 megawatts of electricity over on top of that, and the government has not decided how we’re going to acquire that 1,100 megawatts. I can tell the hon. member that we are, in fact, carefully looking at all of the alternatives.

As a backdrop to this question, I sent the Minister a letter concerning the forthcoming cabinet investment decision on the Site C Hydroelectric project on October 16th 2014. In it, I expressed my profound concern regarding the economic ramifications of making an investment decision in Site C. The letter is reproduced below.

Honourable Mike de Jong
Minister of Finance
Parliament Buildings
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Dear Minister de Jong,

I am writing to you concerning the forthcoming cabinet investment decision on the Site C Hydroelectric project.

I have serious reservations that this project is not economically competitive with other options and is ultimately not in the best interests of British Columbians.

As I’m sure you are aware, Clean Energy BC just released a new study entitled “Cost Effective evaluation of Clean Energy Projects in the Context of Site C.” In their commissioned report, serious questions were raised about BC Hydro’s project valuations. In particular, concerns were raised regarding the elevated capital cost assumptions that were applied to independent power projects, and the “artificially reduced” calculation for BC Hydro’s WACC. The National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) raised similar concerns including a note that BC Hydro’s cost of capital calculations “should not be allowed to drive choices that would affect the BC economy… for many decades.” The Clean Energy BC report written by London Economics International (LEI) provides clear evidence that alternatives are at par if not more competitive then this project.

Ultimately, the study was critical of the current evaluation that was done for Site C. They wrote: “To assure British Columbia ratepayers receive value for money, LEI recommends that costs for Site C be independently reviewed and market tested against the results of one or more clean energy procurements. Such an approach would be consistent with global best practice in procurement.”

The LEI study reiterates, and in many places substantiates, the concerns that the JRP tasked with reviewing the Site C hydroelectric project raised in their ruling. While the JRP ultimately gave a qualified recommendation to proceed with the project, they were highly critical of the economic forecasting that was used to justify its construction. On page 280 of the Site C Review Panel Report it is noted that “The Panel cannot conclude on the likely accuracy of the Project cost estimates because it does not have the information, time or resources.”

The suggestion that the JRP tasked with reviewing the project lacked the time, information and resources is a very worrying indictment of this project, and makes it all the more important that we take other analyses seriously – and all of them point to viable and economically competitive alternatives.

For example, it is my belief that wind power has been vastly underestimated as an economically competitive alternative to generating the same quantity of power. Globally, we have seen wind become increasing competitive as technological breakthroughs allow for energy to be generated at lower and lower wind speeds at increasingly lower costs. Not accounting for these changes in pricing and technology raise the potential for cost estimates for wind to be overstated. In fact, the economic analysis undertaken by BC Hydro specifically assumes that future costs for wind (and other renewables) would not change. Clearly, all evidence points to the contrary as costs of wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy have dropped dramatically in recent years.

I also want to point out that BC is the only jurisdiction along the Ring of Fire that is not generating power from its geothermal resources. A recent report from CanGEA highlighted the massive potential that this resource has for BC. Geothermal energy would support the creation of a more diversified, resilient power grid, while providing a stable base power source. Perhaps it is time to consider expanding BC Hydro’s mandate to allow it to produce power from geothermal sources.

The potential construction of Site C is rightfully considered a turning point for BC – although in my opinion it sends us down an undesirable path. Site C will crowd out the development of other renewable projects, putting at risk the further development of an industry that is among the fastest growing globally.

Ultimately, I share the your desire to see British Columbia’s economy managed in a way that ensures a sustainable approach that is not burdening future generations with the cost of decisions we make today. The government has in the past appropriately celebrated the fact that British Columbia has maintained a AAA credit rating. I am concerned that this rating would be in jeopardy if BC Hydro, a crown corporation, were to incur another 7.9 billion debt (with substantive uncertainty regarding cost over runs).

Finally, bringing other forms of renewable energy on stream incrementally will allow supply to keep pace with demand. We have our legacy dams that can be used as load levellers if they are viewed as rechargeable batteries with other intermittent energy source providing the recharging capacity. And the Clean Energy Act allows 7% of our electricity supply comes from non renewables, such as natural gas which can help firm up power.

Thank you for seriously considering the economic ramifications of making an investment decision in Site C. There may come a day in the future where Site C is needed, but I would argue that right now, it does not make economic sense to proceed with its construction.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Weaver
MLA Oak Bay Gordon Head

This post is part of an ongoing series in which MLA Andrew Weaver will be sharing key information from inside the National Energy Board hearings on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal. To see previous posts, please click here.

Diluted Bitumen in BC Coast Waters

 The ongoing dispute between the City of Burnaby and Trans Mountain has been in the news a fair amount lately. It’s evident to me that the residents of Burnaby are being well-represented by their elected leaders and civic employees. As part of the Trans Mountain National Energy Board hearings, the City of Burnaby has been asking pointed and difficult questions, raising critical issues of concern, and communicating effectively with their residents.  The City of Burnaby is rightly concerned about the potential risk of a diluted bitumen spill at the proposed expanded terminal facility in Burrard Inlet, as well as the potential ramification of having an enhanced pipeline capacity through it’s neighbourhoods or underneath Burnaby Mountain. But what hasn’t received enough attention is the potential risks that our coastal communities face once diluted bitumen is loaded onto tankers.

Bitumen is the raw product extracted from the Alberta oil sands. It is heavier and more viscous than conventional crude oil and so must be either upgraded or diluted with other petroleum products in order for it to flow through pipelines. This combination of bitumen and diluent is referred to as diluted bitumen, or dilbit. There is very little research on how dilbit and the chemicals used to dilute it behave if a spill occurs in fresh water or marine environments.

A recent federal government study concludes that, unlike other crude oils, dilbit will sink in the presence of suspended particulate matter (e.g. sediment particles in the ocean). Suspended particulate matter is very common in B.C.’s coastal waters, meaning that any dilbit spill will likely lead to submerged oil. Currently we have no ability to clean up oil that sinks below the surface, making dilbit a particularly risky substance to transport.

So for coastal British Columbia, a specific reason for concern regarding the transport of dilbit is that we know very little about how it would behave if it were to be spilled into a marine environment. Evidence from the July 2010 Kalamazoo River dilbit spill in Michigan also provides a pretty clear indication that dilbit would sink when combined with sediments. One thing we have no shortage of  in our coastal waters is suspended sediments. Next time you travel on a BC ferry from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen, have a look at the water. Water originating from the Fraser River has a very distinct milky colour associated with its high sediment content.

Please provide your references

As you might imagine, the scientific uncertainty as to the fate and behaviour of a potential dilbit spill prompted me to pose a number of questions to Trans Mountain through the National Energy Board hearing process. Some of my questions were relatively straightforward:

On page 11, of the report A Comparison of the Properties of Diluted Bitumen Crudes with Other Oils, submitted to the National Energy Board as part of the Trans Mountain application, the study of Tsaprailis et al 2013 is referred to. It is the only study cited with respect to penetration of various types of oil into sand. As I could not find the reference, I simply asked the obvious questions?:

1. Is this study peer reviewed?
2. Is this study published in a scientific journal?
3. Are there any peer reviewed scientific journal studies that have examined dilbit penetration into sands? If so, please list them.

Here’s the answer I got:

1. Trans Mountain is unaware of the review process used for the Tsaprailis et al 2013 report but assumes that it was peer reviewed by the client (AIEES).
2. Trans Mountain does not have this information.
3. Trans Mountain is unaware of any scientific publication on dilbit penetration into sediment other than Brown et al. (1992).

You can imagine my frustration. I am trying to examine the scientific evidence underpinning Trans Mountain’s submission and I can’t get access to, or information about, key references they are using in their application.

It gets worse.

On page 5 of the report  A Study of Fate and Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen Oils on Marine Waters, that Trans Mountain submitted in support of their application, it states: “the literature review resulted in only six reported studies focused specifically on dilbits in available on-line searches.” All I asked for was information on how I could find them:

1. Please list these six studies with URLs so that I can access them.
2. Do any of these studies appear in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

You would think it would be trivial to respond to these. But instead of an answer, I was directed to a bibliography that included 75 references which may or may not include the six that were being referred to. Fortunately the National Energy Board compelled Trans Mountain to provide a full and adequate response to my original question and I await receipt of the six references.

Does Diluted Bitumen Sink or Float on Marine Waters?

Transmountain relied heavily on work they commissioned in the report entitled: A Study of Fate and Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen Oils on Marine Waters. This is referred to as the so-called Gainford study. This study undertook tank experiments using saline water (typical of Burrard inlet) that did not include suspended sediments. Yet according to the aforementioned federal study:

“high-energy wave action mixed the sediments with diluted bitumen, causing the mixture to sink or be dispersed as floating tarballs”

and

“Under conditions simulating breaking waves, where chemical dispersants have proven effective with conventional crude oils, a commercial chemical dispersant (Corexit 9500) had quite limited effectiveness in dispersing dilbit.“

So I asked the obvious questions, noting that the tank experiments were all conducted with conditions claimed to be typical of Burrard Inlet. Have any tank experiments been conducted:

1. with more saline conditions typical of the Strait of Juan de Fuca? If not, why not?
2. with colder conditions typical of winter? If not, why not?
3. in the presence of strong horizontal and/or vertical sheer? If not, why not?
4.  in the presence of whirlpools? If not, why not?
5. in the presence of downwelling conditions with downwelling velocities reaching greater than 40-50 cm/s as observed in [observed tidal fronts in the region]? If not, why not?

I received, what can only be described as a very odd response: “Additional studies were conducted by the Government of Canada (2013), under more saline conditions and different temperatures.” In other words, I was referred right back to the report that I cite above claiming that dilbit has the potential to sink. In response to this reply I responded:

“This response is unacceptable. I am aware of the government on Canada studies. As noted in [the Government of Canada (2013) ] report does not provide any details of any research that may or may not get done. I submit that Trans Mountain has not adequately answered the question(s), and request that an appropriate answer be provided.”

To which all I received from Trans Mountain was:

“The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain‘s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.“

This interaction is very troubling to me since in its report entitled Review of Trans Mountain Expansion Project: Future Oil Spill Response Approach Plan, Recommendations on Bases and Equipment, Full Report, submitted by Trans Mountain as evidence in support of its application, it states that:

“During the course of the ten days test the diluted bitumen floated on the water and could be retrieved effectively using conventional skimming equipment.“

It is clear to me that unless compelled to do so, Trans Mountain does not plan to conduct additional tank studies. The question I ask is this. Is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund federal government science in direct support of industry? Or should the industrial proponent of a project be required to pay for the necessary scientific studies? The answer is obvious to me.

Summary

In summary, it is clear that there is a profound gap in scientific knowledge as to what would happen if diluted bitumen were to be released into the Salish Sea.

Yet we must not forget that in British Columbia dilbit is already being piped through the existing Kinder Morgan line to Burnaby where it is loaded onto tankers. About one tanker a week laden with dilbit is passing along the coast of the Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding on its way to refineries in Asia or California.

Was there an environmental review process when dilbit replaced traditional crude in the existing line? If not, why not?

The British Columbia government has outlined five conditions that must be met for their acceptance of heavy oil pipelines projects. These are

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed;
• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments;
• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines;
• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and
• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

I support these five conditions. But in addition and for the reasons outline above, the BC Green Party and I have added a sixth condition:

• A moratorium for dilbit transport along the British Columbia Coast.

The justification is clear. The BC government’s five conditions must be applied to existing as well as future projects.

Today was my turn to read a member’s statement in the house. I took the opportunity to talk about the incredible dedication of a group of parents who call themselves “Moms Like Us“. They are hoping to get a new clubhouse facility built somewhere in the CRD. It is clear to me that there is desperate need for such a facility here in the CRD and I am extremely supportive of the Moms Like Us initiative.

My Statement

Madame Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of meeting a group of parents who call themselves “Moms Like Us”. These parents all had something in common — an adult child or family member struggling with mental illness.

Moms Like Us became motivated to advocate for their adult children as they watched them becoming increasingly isolated and dependent.

Moms like us presented me with details of an established program called Clubhouse International with 322 clubhouses worldwide in 33 countries. This program is based on psychosocial rehabilitation, an innovative evidence-based, best-practice model that helps people living with mental illness lead productive lives. The clubhouse motto is a belief that everyone has a right:

1. To a place to come;
2. To meaningful work
3. To meaningful relationships;
4. To a place to return.

Internationally recognized, Fountain House was the first Clubhouse to open in New York City in 1948.  It has since blossomed into a global program that recognizes an individual’s potential through meaningful work and the support of a caring community.

Clubhouse International’s programs of social relationships and meaningful work have literally saved thousands of lives over the past 66 years.  Its program is a beacon of hope for those living with mental illness that are too often consigned to lives of homelessness, imprisonment, social stigma and isolation.

We have three Clubhouses in British Columbia: New Horizons Clubhouse in Port Alberni, Arrowhead Centre, in Sechelt, and Pathways Clubhouse in Richmond.

As the member from Richmond Steveston recently told the house, Pathways Clubhouse undertook an independent audit that showed that for every dollar invested in them there was a societal return on investment of $14. This means that the demand on hospitals, police departments and other emergency services was reduced as a result of having a Clubhouse International in Richmond. Those are the kind of economics we can all get behind.

Honourable Speaker, Moms Like Us are working towards the establishment of a Clubhouse International in the Capital Regional District. I ask that the house join me in wishing them every success in their endeavours.