Deciding who is allowed to drive and when a driver should have their license revoked is an incredibly important decision that weighs personal freedom against public safety. It’s a tough job tasked to the B.C. Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles in the Ministry of Justice, who then enlists the assistance of driving programs and medical professionals to carry out assessments that inform their decisions. Some, like the written and driving tests many of us took at 16, introduce British Columbians to the driving world. Others, like the Driver’s Medical Examination Report and DriveABLE, are used to ensure current drivers are continuing to drive safely.

There are 96,000 drivers over the age of 80 in B.C., according to ICBC’s 2014 statistics. While keeping our streets safe is undoubtedly the priority, ensuring that mandatory tests are respectful, fair, and effective is also of utmost importance.

Under the current system, when a driver turns 80 they are required to see their doctor for a Driver’s Medical Examination Report (DMER) every two years. The examination covers a lot of ground from eyesight to cardiovascular health to assessing the severity, progression, and treatment of any medical conditions that could affect the driver’s ability to safely operate a vehicle.

This mandatory examination is not covered by provincial health care and usually costs seniors $197 every two years (the fee recommended by the British Columbia Medical Association), but the bill is left to the clinic’s discretion and has been known to range anywhere from $50 to $500. My office called two clinics in my riding; one in Oak Bay charges $105 and another in Gordon Head charges $125.

I agree with the concerns that the Office of the B.C. Seniors Advocate has raised in the past about the indiscriminate DMER pricing scheme. Given that this is a mandatory test for drivers over the age of 80, and that is must be repeated every two years, I believe the cost should be covered by provincial health care. Seniors who are getting their DMER assessments done regularly are doing their part to ensure our streets stay safe. I do not think that is something they should be financially penalized for.

If a person passes DMER with flying colours, as we always hope they will, they are free to enjoy another two years of safe driving. If the doctor notices a potential problem during the examination, however, it will be reported to RoadSafetyBC. As the agency that oversees driver licensing, RoadSafetyBC will look at the doctor’s report and determine if the patient is going to lose their license or go for additional testing. When the doctor’s concerns relate to cognitive issues that could interfere with driving abilities, the patient may be instructed to take the DriveABLE examination.

Only a small percentage of seniors who go through the DMER process are referred to DriveABLE. A private company based in Alberta developed the DriveABLE program. The company has had a contract with the B.C. government since 2005 and receives roughly $420 from the province every time someone is tested. The test is done on a computer and is 60 to 90 minutes long and can be daunting to seniors with limited computer or video game experience. If the computer assessment is failed, as it often is, drivers can then request an on-road evaluation to demonstrate their safe driving abilities.

So what is the purpose of the BC Government making seniors jump through the costly DriveABLE hoop when they can ultimately appeal a DriveABLE test failure and ask for an on-road evaluation. It makes no sense to me. It strikes me as for more sensible to just dump the DriveABLE screening and go straight to the on road test. The monies saved in this process could be used to eliminate the DMER cost to seniors

When the time comes to see your doctor for a DMER, Steve Wallace, the owner of Wallace Driving School on Vancouver Island and former vice-president of the Driving School Association of the Americas, recommends bringing a record of your driving history. You can get a copy of your driver’s abstract, the driving record for the past five years, free of charge at any ICBC testing facility.

If you have ideas about how the driving assessment process could be improved in B.C. please feel free to contact my constituency association office at (250) 472-8528 or my legislature office by phone at (250) 387-8347, email at Andrew.Weaver.MLA@leg.bc.ca, or mail at Andrew Weaver, Room 027C Parliament Buildings, Victoria BC, V8V 1X4.

Media Statement September 15, 2016
Andrew Weaver Renews Call to Reform Medical Service Premiums
For Immediate Release

Victoria, B.C. – While a freeze in Medical Service Plan (MSP) premium increases is certainly welcome, the government has lost the opportunity to fully reform this regressive tax says Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

“British Columbians will see this MSP announcement for what it is, a cynical ploy to gain votes as we head into an election year”, says Andrew Weaver. “We need to eliminate the MSP, not simply tinker around its edges.”

“Over the last three years I have consistently and continually called for the MSP to rolled into the income tax system with premiums calculated on taxable income rather than the current system which is a flat tax no matter what people earn.” says Andrew Weaver. “This would turn a regressive tax into a fair system much like has already been done in Ontario”

In Ontario, if you earn $20,000 or more a year you pay the Ontario Health Premium (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.

“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 $42,000 or $4,200,000 a year.”

“As Leader of the BC Green Party I can affirm that a B.C. Green Party government would eliminate the regressive monthly MSP premiums. Instead, a B.C. Green government would introduce a progressive system in which rates are determined by one’s earnings. And a net and substantive administrative savings to taxpayers would arise in rolling MSP premiums into the existing income tax system.” says Andrew Weaver

– 30 –

Background:

Call to eliminate MSP premiums:

Moving Forward with MSP premiums:

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

Today I had the distinct honour of speaking at the opening of the Royal BC Museum exhibit ‘Bread and Salt‘ celebrating the 125^th Anniversary of Ukrainian Immigration to Canada. Below is the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

Good afternoon, добрий день,

It gives me great pleasure to be here at the opening of the Royal BC Museum exhibit celebrating the 125^th Anniversary of Ukrainian Immigration to Canada.

On behalf of the constituents in Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I welcome you and sincerely thank those involved for putting the exhibit together.

Ever since Vasyl Ilyniak and Ivan Pylypiw arrived in Quebec from western Ukraine on September 7, 1891, Ukrainian Canadians have played a key role in making Canada what it is today. Now, more than 1.2 million Canadians claim full or partial Canadian heritage. And I am one of them.

My grandfather and mother fled Ukraine as refugees during the Second World War. After several years living in refugee camps and subsequently impoverished conditions in France, they too landed in Quebec, calling it their home for many years. And as was the Ukrainian way, my grandfather eventually returned to farming in Canada, his new country.

There must be something in the blood of Ukrainians that leads them to have such a profound respect and love of the land. In fact, my dream is to one day move onto a small farm.

You can take the Ukrainian out of Ukraine, but you can’t take the love of the land out of the Ukrainian.

Like so many others with stories that are so similar, my family immigrated to Canada so that their children could have a better life. My family instilled in us the importance of hard work, just as so many other descendants of Ukrainian immigrants did with their children

Canadians of Ukrainian descent live throughout Canada but remain bonded by their strong culture — a rich culture and history that we will find displayed in the Royal BC Museum exhibit opening today.

Thank you, Дякую, and enjoy the exhibit.

The Canadian Cancer Society has initiated a radon detection program on Vancouver Island. One of the three communities that has been selected is Gordon Head.

Radon, produced through the decay of uranium, is a naturally occurring gas whose presence is not detectable through smell, taste or sight. But this same gas is known to be the second leading cause of lung cancer behind smoking and it can build up in homes where naturally occurring radon is present. The good news is that if radon is detected, all homes can be fixed.

As noted by the Canadian Cancer Society in their information package:

Geological maps of uranium deposits demonstrate there is potential for elevated radon levels on Vancouver Island, although limited residential testing has been completed. The Canadian Cancer Society wants to identify radon levels to determine if there is a need for further testing, community education, action, or policy.

If you own a single detached home in the Gordon Head area and would like to participate for free in the Canadian Cancer Society’s research endeavour, please find instructions their information package.

Since becoming an MLA I have visited the proposed location of the Site C dam on the Peace River twice. Most recently, on Aug. 23, I travelled a section of the river with a group of concerned community members. It’s hard to fathom the scale of planned development unless you see it in person, just as it’s hard to grasp the human and cultural cost of this project until you listen to the people caught in the middle of it.

Dam construction would flood more than 5,000 hectares of land – drowning homes, traditional lands, scores of culturally important sites, and 15,985 acres of agricultural land.

Local and indigenous people in the area are being systematically stripped of their livelihood and culture by one arm of government, while receiving apologies for past injustices and promises of reconciliation from another.

Compounding the environmental, historical, cultural and agricultural damages is a reckless disregard of energy economics.

Since 2005, domestic demand for electricity in B.C. has been essentially flat, but over the next 20 years BC Hydro forecasts our energy needs will increase by about 40 per cent as a consequence of both population and economic growth. They are selling Site C as the solution to this growing electricity demand, but their argument doesn’t hold water.

Upon completion, the dam would produce 1,100 MW (megawatts, i.e. millions of Watts) of power capacity and up to 5,100 GWh (gigawatt hours, i.e. billions of watt hours) of electricity each year.

Currently only about 1.5 per cent of B.C.’s electricity production is supplied by wind energy (compared to roughly 20 per cent in P.E.I.). With our mountainous terrain and coastal boundary, the potential for both onshore and offshore wind power production is enormous. The Canadian Wind Energy Association and the BC Hydro Integrated Resource Plan 2013 indicate that 5,100 GWh of wind-generated electricity could be produced in B.C. for about the same price as the electricity to be produced by the Site C dam.

A report by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association noted B.C. also has substantial untapped potential for firm, on demand, geothermal power which could be developed where power is needed.

While costs associated with Site C will be borne by provincial taxpayers (a price tag that will eventually be much more than BC Hydro’s estimate of roughly $9 billion), solar, wind and geothermal project risks are covered by industry.  Alternative sources coupled with existing dams could provide enough energy to meet the needs of British Columbians, with the potential to scale up as needed. They would also provide better economic opportunities to local communities and First Nations across the province, with lower impacts on traditional territories.

Instead of a diversified approach to renewable energy, the B.C. government is pushing Site C because they want to offer LNG proponents access to firm power. As I have been explaining for years, however, there will be no B.C. LNG industry in the foreseeable future because of a global glut in natural gas and plummeting prices for imported LNG in Asia. As the government desperately doubles down on LNG, renewable projects are moving elsewhere. Just this year they let a $750 million US investment to build wind capacity on Vancouver Island slip away, despite buy-in from five First Nations, TimberWest, EDP Renewables and the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

I wanted to see how much has been done when I visited Site C this summer. Nothing has passed a point of no return. Proceeding with Site C is actively driving clean energy investment out of the province, but it is not too late to correct our province’s power trajectory.