|
|
|
| Follow @WesTaylorWRP Wildrose Coffee Room |
The ethics (and non-ethics) of how government spending is prioritizedIn 1994, five premiers and 21 years ago, the Alberta government made a commitment to the people of Whitecourt. It said it would replace the community’s aging hospital. The old hospital has yet to be replaced.Some years ago now, the provincial government also promised the community of Wainwright a new hospital. It hasn't been built yet either. In fact, today, the Wainwright hospital is in such bad shape that one of the government’s own internal assessment reports says that healthcare at the facility is what they call “suboptimal.” The sewers back up, the roof leaks, it’s impossible at times to get hot water from the taps, and the doors and hallways are so narrow that it’s impossible to move modern equipment around without banging into door jams and walls (possibly damaging expensive equipment). By the government’s own admission, the current Wainwright facility may be an accident waiting to happen. The Health Services Report warns that the current substandard conditions have “significant” IPC implications (Infection Prevention Control). Why have the needs of these communities been ignored? Why are so many non-urban communities, which are in need of healthcare facilities, not on the government’s radar? The answer has to do with the way previous governments prioritized infrastructure spending. For decades, the Alberta government maintained a very inefficient and biased approach to healthcare spending. At no time did the PC government try to establish a publicly transparent way to measure the needs of communities, categorize the results, and then publicly prioritize infrastructure spending on the basis of demonstrated need. If they had done something like this, the timing for the construction of hospitals, schools, and other government facilities would be as reliable as a Calgary Flames game schedule. Instead, successive PC governments left these major spending decisions in the hands of the most powerful ministers, who tended to spend wherever they’d get the greatest political advantage. Many Albertans will recall that certain past PC MLAs would even publicly warn school boards and local communities not to criticize the government, suggesting that infrastructure spending might be affected if they did. Clearly, the idea that billions of dollars in annual infrastructure spending decisions should depend solely upon the whims of a handful of high ranking politicians does not serve our province. Instead, Alberta requires a transparent needs assessment and a public review process that systematically prioritizes spending and establishes priorities. It’s the only way to get better economic efficiency and to get the politics out of the process. Now that the NDP has assumed control of the provincial government, opposition members are already pressing for a reliable, publicly transparent process that lets every single Alberta voter and taxpayer know exactly what’s going on when it comes to the scheduling of government infrastructure facilities—including priorities, timing, and sequence. If the Notley government really does want (as it claims) to turn over a new ethical leaf in the way that our government operates, then infrastructure spending is a key place to start. Conversely, if the NDP follows on the heels of what the PCs have done in the past, then voters, taxpayers, and municipalities are again going to be saddled with an approach to government infrastructure spending that is arbitrary, manipulative, politically self-serving, and unnecessarily expensive. Co-compiled by: Wes Taylor MLA, Battle River Wainwright Email: BattleRiverWainwright@assembly.ab.ca Twitter: @WesTaylorWRP Website: WesTaylor Rick Strankman MLA, Drumheller Stettler Email: drumheller.stettler@assembly.ab.ca Twitter: @RickStrankman Website: www.RickStrankman.ca |
|