Background

On January 6, 2016 concerned Shawnigan Lake residents invited the media, politicians and the public to come and see the contaminated soil facility operating on Stebbings Road and to listen to their concerns directly. Residents, local councillors and others were in attendance to answer questions. The media and politicians were also taken on helicopter rides over the site in order to get a bird’s eye view of the operations. Indeed I was one of the many politicians who was on one such helicopter ride.

I have written earlier on the wisdom of dumping contaminated soils in the Shawnigan Lake watershed and I have twice collected samples from the effluent running off Lot 21, immediately beside the operating contaminated soil facility.

The results of my water samples collected on April 2, 2015, together with my observation that a significant amount of fill had over run Lot 21 and was on the neighbouring parkland, led me to subsequently ask the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Environment questions during Question Period.

The results of my sediment samples taken on May 15, 2015 at the same site as my earlier water samples led me to ask the question as to what, if anything, has been buried on Lot 21 that could produce the Thorium, Lead and other heavy metal enrichment in the sediments.

As the months have passed, residents of the Shawnigan Lake region have continued to raise substantive concerns as to whether or not the operations at the contaminated soil facility are in compliance with the requirements of their relevant permits. On November 16th I rose in the legislature to call for an emergency debate on a recent failure of the contaminated soil site storm water containment and clarification system at the site. I did this after Island Health issued a no-water use advisory “advising residents not to use water taken out of the lake from the south end of Lake Shawnigan, south of Butler Avenue and Verlon Road, due to suspected overflow of water from South Island Aggregates’ site.” This means that residents were being advised “not to use or draw water from the area of the lake for residential or commercial use, including bathing, personal hygiene, drinking and food preparation.”

The Water Containment and Clarification System

It doesn’t end there.

On December 1, 2015 I issued a press release calling on the BC Government to immediately cease operations at the site after the Cowichan Valley Regional District released a report from Thurber Engineering Ltd. The report identified serious concerns about surface runoff and throughflow potentially becoming contaminated but not adequately being contained or treated. In particular, the Thurber Engineering Ltd report noted that:

“The presence of the large volume of water emerging from under the rock armour at the head of the ephemeral stream indicates that runoff storm water sourced from the SIA site is bypassing the sediment pond (i.e by flowing under it) and is being discharged directly onto the land owned by the CVRD”.

This occurred despite the fact that the BC Government mandates that all surface water is required to be “contained on the property and treated in accordance with the permit”.

The water containment facility is shown in Figures 1a and 1c. Figures 1b and 1d illustrate a pool of water immediately beside the treatment facility. The Thurber report identifies this as potentially a source of water that feeds the ephemeral stream and bypasses the containment facility. Frankly, it would be incredibly easy to verify this by simply tagging the water with a dye as is commonly done in municipalities when potential storm/sewer crossovers are detected.

a)    b)

c)    d)

Figure 1: Photographs of the water containment system and the standing pool of water immediately beside the containment system taken on: a), b) November 16, 2015; c), d) from a helicopter on January 6, 2016.

In my view we have a serious situation where contaminated soils are being delivered to the site on an ongoing basis. Yet at the same time very troubling questions have been raised by an independent engineering firm about the functioning of the water containment system. I am beyond astounded that the Ministry would continue to allow contaminated soils to be delivered while the “permittee and their qualified professional(s)” review the situation as per the functioning of the water containment system.

I also remain troubled by the frequent referral to an ephemeral stream in numerous reports. By definition, an ephemeral stream is one that exists “only briefly during and following a period of rainfall in the immediate locality.” Yet I was given a tour of the contaminated soil facility on August 5th, 2015 and it had been very dry. At that time the stream was running and the pond was still present. This suggests to me that a component of water found in the pond has originated from below the surface.

Sulphur and Sodium Chloride Contaminants

The Shawnigan Lake residents most recently have been expressing increasing concern over the fact that contaminated soils high in sulphur and salt (sodium chloride) from Pacific Coast Terminals in Port Moody are being dumped in the operating facility.

Water in the “ephemeral creek” has been tested several times by the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment reported (see SW1) that water in the ephemeral creek (about 15m from where the containment pond discharges into it) on November 14, 2015 had:

1. a sulpher concentration of 56.1 milligrams per litre
2. a sodium concentration of 21.8 milligrams per litre

Samples collected by the Ministry of Environment on November 17,2015 at the same location on November 14 revealed (see E292898):

1. a sulpher concentration of 23.2 milligrams per litre
2. a sodium concentration of 9.16 milligrams per litre

A summary of these results was put together in the media package provided by Shawnigan residents on January 6, 2016.

On the same day I took the opportunity to collect further independent samples. After the aerial tour of the site, I hiked around the property and collected two samples (Figure 2a and b) in the vicinity of where the Ministry of Environment collected their samples. I collected a third control sample in Shawnigan Creek upstream from the contaminated soil facility at almost the exact same location of where I collected my control sample in my earlier sediment analysis (see Figure 2c).

a)    b)

c)

Figure 2: Photographs of the location of where the two water samples were taken in the ephemeral creek: a) at a location a few metres upstream from where the Ministry of Environment collected their water samples (UP POND in the January 6, 2015 water analysis data); b) at the location where the Ministry of Environment collected their water samples (DOWN POND in the January 6, 2015 water analysis data). c) Photograph of the location where I collected my control sediments for my earlier analysis. The control water sample was taken a few metres north of this location (Control at bridge in the January 6, 2015 water analysis data).

My three resulting water samples were analyzed by Jody Spence at UVic using a Thermo X-Series2 Quadrupole ICP-MS. All water samples were filtered through clean (new) polyvinyl filters (0.45 um). A separate filter used for each sample. The first 10 mL of each sample was flushed through to condition the filter before collecting the 10 mL aliquot for analysis. After filtration, the samples were acidified with 0.2 mL of 16 Molar Environmental Grade Nitric Acid.

The resulting January 6, 2015 water analysis data reveal the following results:

Sample 1: UP POND; Figure 2a

1. a sulpher concentration of 33.3 milligrams per litre
2. a sodium concentration of 13.5 milligrams per litre

Sample 2: DOWN POND; Figure 2b

1. a sulpher concentration of 32.4 milligrams per litre
2. a sodium concentration of 13.1 milligrams per litre

Sample 3: Control at bridge; Figure 2c

1. a sulpher concentration that was undetectable to the limit of machine precision
2. a sodium concentration of 1.85 milligrams per litre

These results are consistent with the elevated sulpher and sodium concentrations found by the Ministry of Environment back in November.

Two additional observations are worth noting. On the day I collected my samples there was no water pooled in the water containment facilities sedimentation pond (it was largely covered with snow). The pond immediately beside it was quite large and the surface appeared to be frozen. In addition, a distinct smell of sulpher hydroxide was noted at the property line where the containment facility allows water to enter the ephemeral creek.

Summary

Based on several independently-collected water samples collected over the last few months it is clear that water in the “ephemeral creek” leaving the property contains elevated levels of sodium and sulphur. The fact that sulphur was undetectable in the control sample makes it pretty clear that the contaminants originate from the Pacific Coast Terminal soils that have been dumped in the operating facility.

While it is clear to me that there is no immediate health concerns to the residents of Shawnigan Lake from the samples I collected, questions still remain. In my opinion it would be prudent for the Ministry of Environment to immediately cease operations at the facility in order to:

1. Ensure the water containment facility is actually functioning as required by permit;
2. Determine where the water in the pond is coming from and whether it drains into the ephemeral creek;
3. Conduct an assessment as to the cumulative effects of high sodium, sulphur and potentially chemicals that will make there way to Shawnigan lake through the ephemeral creek. The site has only just opened and will be in operation for decades.

Failing to take these immediate steps I believe would be a continued dereliction of duty by the Ministry of Environment.

Media Statement January 9, 2016
Attack on Syrian Refugees Appalling
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – “The pepper spray attack on Syrian refugees in Vancouver is appalling” says Andrew Weaver MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

More than two dozen men, women and children were treated by paramedics outside the Muslim Association of Canada Centre in Vancouver the evening of January 8 as they were peppered sprayed while attending an event welcoming them to Canada.

“British Columbian’s from all communities and all walks of life have opened their hearts, homes and wallets to support refugees from Syria. It is a testament to our collective compassion and the basic values we embrace as Canadians.” says Andrew Weaver. “This attack is shocking and I want to reassure all newcomers to our communities our welcome remains as strong as ever.”

Media contact

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
1 250 216 3382

It has been nearly two years since I became an Intervenor in the Trans Mountain National Energy Board Hearing. My team and I spent many hundreds of hours pouring over a 15,000 page application; we submitted nearly 600 questions; we made countless motions arguing that Trans Mountain had not, in fact, answered our original questions; we’ve written numerous blog posts highlighting our concerns over the Trans Mountain pipeline proposal.

Today we submitted our 50-page final argument to the National Energy Board. As you will see from the Media Release, reproduced below, I firmly believe that the NEB should dismiss the application due to the existence of “substantive deficiencies”.

Thank you to the numerous constituents, colleagues and citizens of British Columbia who responded to our surveys, attended our town halls and emailed my office with information. I am especially grateful to the staff I had the distinct honour of working with over the lengthy intervention process: Taylor Hartrick, Evan Pivnick, Judy Fainstein, Teresa Hartrick, Claire Hume, Aldous Sperl and Mat Wright.

My final participation the hearing process will occur at 13:30 on Wednesday, January 20, at the Delta Burnaby Hotel and Conference Centre, 4331 Dominion Street, Burnaby, British Columbia. There I will be giving an my oral summary argument directly to the National Energy Board.

Media Release

Media Statement: January 8, 2016
Final Arguments on Trans Mountain Pipeline Hearings Submitted by Andrew Weaver
For Immediate Release

Victoria, B.C. – Today Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head and Leader of the B.C. Green Party submitted his Final Argument in the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Hearing Process.

As an intervenor, Andrew Weaver argued that Trans Mountain had failed to adequately and accurately represent the full scope of risks and impacts that a diluted bitumen (dilbit) spill would have. He also stated that Trans Mountain had failed to represent a clear and satisfactory ability to respond to a dilbit spill.

“It is critical that we understand just how unprepared we are for a dilbit spill on British Columbia’s coast,” said Andrew Weaver. “This isn’t just hypothetical – we already have heavy oil tankers in our coastal waters.”

Andrew Weaver’s final argument noted that due to these “substantive deficiencies,” the application should be dismissed by the NEB.

Of particular concern in this process was Trans Mountain’s ability to respond to a spill of heavy oil. Trans Mountain based much of their analysis on the faulty assumption that dilbit would float. What little science there is available examining this issue has found that bitumen has the ability to sink in the presence of suspended particles, of which there is no shortage in British Columbia’s coastal waters.

“Trans Mountain consistently failed to provide scenarios that could sustain even the most basic scrutiny,” said Andrew Weaver. “This project needs to be halted until we better understand the science of heavy oil in marine environments and British Columbia’s spill prevention and response capabilities are greatly updated.”

A report issued by US authorities in April, 2015 warned that Canada’s major oil spill clean up protocol is decades behind their own.

Andrew Weaver applied to participate in the hearing process as both a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Oak Bay Gordon Head, and as a scientist with a doctorate in applied mathematics with a specialty in physical oceanography, atmospheric and climate science.

Andrew Weaver will be presenting his oral summary argument to the National Energy Board on Wednesday January 20^th 2016 at the Delta Burnaby Hotel and Conference Centre.

-30-

Media contact

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

Twitter: @MatVic
Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

In case you weren’t aware, life just got a little more expensive for British Columbians.

Medical Service Plan (MSP) Premiums have just gone up again. This tax is applied to anyone living in BC for six months or longer and requires them to pay monthly premiums for health care coverage. While some individuals can apply for premium assistance, these subsidies dry up as soon as a person earns a net annual income of $30,000 or more.

Healthcare costs money. There’s no denying that we need to support the medical services we rely on.

However the way MSP Premiums work in British Columbia is regressive, hurting those who can least afford it.

It’s time we followed the path Ontario has taken and rolled the MSP Premiums into our income tax system.

The Problem

Currently in BC a person who earns $30,000 a year pays the same rate for their MSP Premiums as someone who is earning $3,000,000 a year. This is what it means to have a regressive tax – what you pay is not based on what you make.

MSP Premiums become even more regressive when you factor in who actually pays them. The fact is, many large employers pay all or part of an employee’s MSP premium as part of a negotiated taxable benefit of employment. But for many, if not most, low and fixed income British Columbians, as well as small business owners, they must pay the costs themselves.

And they have been going up constantly.

Back in 2000, the MSP premium for a single individual was $36/month. Today that same individual pays more than twice as much, now up to $75/month. Just since 2010 there has been a 40% increase. For a family of three your new rate as of January 1^st 2016 is $150/month, up from $142/month.

Let me put this another way: The BC Government rakes almost as much revenue in from MSP Premiums as it does from corporate income tax.

The government’s response has generally been to point out that it does have some premium assistance available. But this too is not without significant issues.

First, the assistance program is an opt-in program rather than an opt-out. One academic paper found that 26% of families that earned less than $30,000 a year were not enrolled in the system.

Second it would be a mistake to assume that once you are earning $30,000 a year that this is now an affordable tax.

Before moving on  I’d like to acknowledge, with thanks, Lindsay Tedds at the UVic School of Public Administration for her thoughtful blog post on this issue.

MSP Premiums are a regressive tax that are contributing to the issue of affordability so pervasive in our province. What do we do about it?

The Solution

The answer to my previous question is very straightforward. British Columbia should follow the path taken by Ontario in 2004 when they introduced the Ontario Health Premium (OHP), and rolled it into their income tax system.

In Ontario if you earn $20,000 or more a year you pay the OHP. It ranges from $0 if your taxable income is $20,000 or less, and goes up to $900 per year if your taxable income is more than $200,600. Instead of the mail-out system we have in BC, the OHP is deducted from the pay and pensions of those with employment or pension income that meets the minimum threshold. The full range of premium rates in Ontario for those at different incomes can be viewed here.

Remember – only Ontario’s top earners are paying $900 per year. Right now people in British Columbia are paying $900 a year regardless of whether they earn $30,000 or $3,000,000 a year.

Next Steps

It is past time that the BC Government adopt this straightforward change. Last year, when I brought this issue up there was an outpouring of interest and support for the idea. Even the government indicated that they weren’t opposed to talking about it.

Yet, a year later, nothing has changed except that MSP Premiums have once again gone up.

This needs to be corrected. The 2016 budget will be tabled on February 16^th 2016. Please join me in calling on our government to implement this common sense change for inclusion in this year’s budget.

One thing is certain, as Leader of the BC Green Party I can attest to the fact that a BC Green Party government would eliminate the regressive monthly MSP premiums. Instead, a BC Green government would introduce a progressive system in which rates are determined by one’s earnings. And a net administrative savings to taxpayers would arise in rolling MSP premiums into the existing income tax system.

With over 4.5 million Canadians in need of a family physician, Canada appears to be facing the largest doctor shortage since the creation of Medicare in 1968. Our practicing physician to patient ratio landed us 17^th out of 21 in a 2006 OECD report on physician services and the situation hasn’t improved since – despite being the focus of many political promises.

a) b)

Figure 1: Percentage of Canadians without a family doctor by age, group and sex aged 12 and over. a) For various age groups; b) Averaged 0ver all ages. Data from Statistics Canada.

Over the last few years, the B.C. Liberals have repeatedly vowed that every British Columbian would have a family doctor by 2015. In 2010 then Health Services Minister Kevin Falcon announced that the Province was going to overhaul its primary health-care system with a $137-million investment to “strengthen service delivery, ensure patients are full participants in their care and provide every British Columbian who wants a family doctor with one by 2015.”

Figure 2: Practicing physicians per one million population for several countries. Repropduced from the OECD report: The Supply of Physician Services in OECD Countries.

In February of 2013 the BC Liberals renewed their commitment with the $132.4 million ‘A GP for Me’ pilot program they said would ensure everyone who wanted a family doctor would be able to access one within two years.

“The objective is clear, all British Columbians will have access to a family physician…” Unfortunately, 2015 has come and gone and there are an incredible number of people still in need of a family doctor.

In fact, fewer British Columbians have a regular doctor now than before the government made those lofty promises. According to Statistics Canada, in 2012 3,397,007 people in BC had a family doctor. By 2013 that number had fallen by 27,947 to 3,369,060. In 2014 it was lower still at 3,361,856.

Despite the incredible amount of money that has been thrown at this problem, today in British Columbia it is estimated that over 200,000 people are still actively looking for a family doctor.

When facing a problem of this magnitude and complexity, it is important to look back at the policies and regulations that got us here. While there are no doubt countless contributing factors that influence doctor shortages, what follows is an overview of the major changes that shifted our course towards one critically deficient in family physicians.

In 1961, the average medical ratio in BC was 758 patients for each doctor. Much like today, however, the rural-urban distribution of doctors was uneven. In rural areas the ratio was much higher, at 1,229 patients per doctor, and 73.6% of the province’s physicians were concentrated in Vancouver and Victoria.

Sensing problems ahead, the federal Royal Commission on Health Services (who outlined the foundation for Canada’s universal medicare system) analyzed the medical workforce statistics and predicted an overall shortage of doctors by the 1970’s (source available in hard copy only, page 246). Along with increasing med-student intake at universities across the country, the report recommended the establishment of at least four additional medical schools to meet the needs of a growing population. Their shortage projections extended until 1991 (page 70).

When 1991 arrived, however, the perceived supply of doctors did a rapid reversal. A report presented to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health by Barer and Stoddart cautioned that we were, in fact, heading towards a doctor surplus. Public policy shifted accordingly and drastic changes were made to the way physicians were trained and licensed in Canada.

Barer and Stoddart were concerned that there were too many doctors, especially in urban areas, and that this would put people at risk of being over-treated as physicians (who bill per patient) competed for limited cases (page 11, 48-50). This theory of “physician-induced demand,” it should be noted, has always been a controversial and inconclusively proven phenomenon (page 19). Nevertheless, Barer and Stoddart recommended limiting med school entry and reducing the use of foreign-trained physicians and governments followed suite.

In BC, the government introduced a combination of incentives and penalties in the hopes of shifting more doctors away from city centers and into remote areas. By 1993, travel assistance, isolation allowance, and subsidized, salaried positions were offered to doctors willing to move to more rural locations. At the same time, the government tried to manage doctors as they prepared to enter or exit the workforce. Young doctors looking to set up practices in areas deemed “oversupplied” were met with a 50 per cent reduction in their fee-for-service rate. This penalty only lasted a few years though, as it was challenged by physicians and the Professional Association of Residents of British Columbia and in 1997 ruled unconstitutional by the BC Supreme Court. The Court deemed the fee penalty imposed on urban doctors as a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed mobility and equity clause, as well as a breach of Canada Health Act’s requirement for reasonable compensation for insured services (page 24). Mandatory retirement caps set at 75 year were removed as well, following a legal challenge by the Senior Physician Society of BC (page 25).

A few years later, however, opinions had shifted yet again and the public and policy makers were back to being worried about a serious national doctor shortage. Incredibly, within a span of a decade the believed supply of doctors had done a complete reversal. A 2002 report for the Canadian Institute for Health Information, From Perceived Surplus to Perceived Shortage: What happened to Canada’s Physician Workforce in the 1990s?, cited changes to postgraduate medical training programs as the largest contributing factor. By extending the residency requirement for general practitioners there was an extra delay on new doctors entering the workforce. In addition, a higher proportion of medical students elected to specialize, further limiting the number of family doctors (page 36). At the same time more doctors were retiring, fewer students were being accepted to medical school, and the number of positions available to foreign-train doctors dropped – all while the general population continued to increase and get proportionally older.

Five years after the BC government was taken to court for reducing urban doctors billing rates they were back to offering generous financial incentives. Retention Allowances were introduced in 2002 to encourage doctors to start practices in smaller communities. The Northern and Isolation Travel Assistance Outreach Program covered travel costs and accommodation for physicians service isolated communities. In 2007 the Family Physicians for British Columbia program paid $100,000 to doctors willing to establish full service practices for at least three years in underserved areas. That year not one doctor stepped forward to accept any of the 15 Interior Health incentive packages.

Picking up on research that suggests medical students recruited from rural backgrounds are more likely to work in non-urban areas after graduating, the BC government announced plans to expand and upgrade teaching hospitals around the province. They also increased province wide first-year enrollment from 128 in 2001 to 256 in 2007 and authorized the creation of three additional medical campuses at UVic, UNBC, and UBC Okanagan.

Backtracking on foreign-trained doctor restrictions, International Medical Graduates were once again seen as part of the solution to physician shortages across Canada. Canada has never trained enough physicians to meet the country’s needs and foreign-trained doctors account for roughly a quarter of the medical workforce in Canada. Though securing a position is incredibly competitive for non-Canadian doctors, they do account for roughly 38% of Newfoundland and Labrador’s physicians and 46% of Saskatchewan’s. Unsurprisingly, the logistics of integrating and licensing foreign-trained physicians are clumsy and slow, though some medical colleges are recognized as accredited and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia which streamlines applications.

In 2007 the college was licensing 100 to 150 foreign doctors per year and in the 2008 Speech from the Throne the BC government promised that a “new framework to allow Canadian citizens trained outside of Canada to find residencies and practices in B.C. [would] be developed and implemented.”

This included a new health profession review board to “ensure that all qualified health workers can fully and appropriately utilize the training of skills and not be denied that right by unnecessary credentialing and licensure restrictions.”

Bill 25, the Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, introduced in April of the same year provided the legislative structure for these changes

Despite these initiatives the practice of importing doctors is not without controversy and many jurisdictions are trying to become less dependent on them. In 2001 the High Commissioner to South Africa asked Canada to stop depleting the supply of doctors in his country where hospitals were desperately underserved. “Immigration of doctors can ease physician shortages in countries where numbers are lacking but it raises difficult questions about international equity when there are net, long-term flows of physicians from poorer countries with low average health status to richer countries with high health status,” writes Simoens and Hurst’s report on the supply of physicians in OECD counties. “As a result, many OECD countries aim for self-sufficiency in physician supply.”

One possible alternative to the geographically uneven distribution of doctors in BC is the use of “Telehealth” services which use videoconferencing technologies to connect doctors and patients. There are concerns about privacy and insurance coverage with these systems, but the presence of nurses to facilitate calls and operate examination cameras on the patient side do make them feasible in certain scenarios.

The certification of more nurse practitioners is also seen as a promising way to increase patient care while reducing relative health care costs. Nurse practitioners were first regulated in BC in 2005, not as a substitute for doctors, but a compliment. When paired with doctors they can streamline patient care by treating routine illnesses and injuries while physicians handle more complex diagnoses. Nurse Practitioners are able to diagnose, consult, order and interpret tests, prescribe, and treat health conditions. They work in both independent and collaborative practice roles across BC and practice acute care, outpatient clinics, residential care and community settings.

Now at the start of 2016, we find ourselves once again repeating history as we offer doctors a patchwork of financial incentives in an attempt to meet the province’s growing medical needs.

Currently, in addition to recruitment incentives ($15,000 or $20,000), relocation incentives ($15,000), the rural retention program, isolation allowance, and various other training bursaries, rural physicians receive a one-time payment of $100,000 for a commitment to work for three years in a designated rural communities. The incentive is available to family practitioners, specialists and residents who are paid $50,000 when they start work in the community and the remaining $50,000 after one year.

In some situations these economic bonuses have changed the problem, without improving the overall situation. The current set up gives doctors the ability to work less while earning more, and one can hardly fault them for making the most of it. As the graphs from the MSP Physician Resource Report below indicate, the total expenditure for general practice doctors has increased significantly since 2005, but the average number of patients treated per physician has dropped. The government’s policy changes over the last ten years have lead to more doctors, working less days, treating fewer patients. An important, though further complicating, caveat to this data is that it focuses on quantity of care – not quality. In many cases doctors seeing fewer patients is a positive change as it indicates they are spending more time with each individual. For people struggling with multiple or complex conditions this added assistance is essential.

With more female doctors, who statistically allocate more time to each patient, practicing in BC than ever before and doctors in general striving to create a healthier work life balance, the policies used to influence the doctor shortages of the 1970’s are no longer relevant. Family doctors play a vital role in our well being and they deserve a policy framework that lets them treat patients in a manageable, fulfilling, and efficient manner.

Given this province’s complicated history with doctor shortages, what is most concerning about the BC Liberal’s promise to provide every British Columbian with a family physician is not that they have failed – one only has to look back at the struggles Canada has had maintaining an appropriate number of GPs to know BC’s doctor shortage was never something that could be fixed in two years. What is most concerning is that British Columbians were repeatedly mislead about what could be realistically achieved.

We’re beginning to see a pattern emerge with this government. Whether it be promises of 100,000 LNG jobs, a debt free BC, or a GP for every British Columbian, the government is long on rhetoric and short on policy grounded in evidence. British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a government that is transparent and honest with its expectations and promises.

Over the next year, and in collaboration with my policy advisors, I will be outlining ways we might consider to alleviate the British Columbia’s GP crunch.

If you have ideas you would like to share with me and my team, please don’t hesitate to email us at: Andrew.Weaver.MLA@leg.bc.ca