Services are more important than buildings

Let us be clear that governments do need to build things ... schools, hospitals, roads and, yes, even bypasses.

Notwithstanding the incessant politicking these past 10 years about the “infrastructure deficit” left behind by the previous NDP administration (that may have had something to do with the billion-dollara-year deficits left behind by the Grant Devine Progressive Conservatives), credit the Saskatchewan Party for recognizing a need.

Consider the aggressive Saskatchewan Builds Capital Plan that went from $551 million in 2007-08 (the last budget presented by the previous NDP administration) to a record $1.76 billion in 2016-17, followed by $1.58 billion in 2017-18 and a projected $1.2 billion in the 2018-19 budget. In fact, in the 11 Sask. Party government budgets, there have been only five years when capital spending has been less than a billion dollars and only one year where it was less than three-quarters of a billion.

Such spending has been good for Saskatchewan’s economy — especially, during the recent economic downturn.

However, are we truly maximizing this massive public investment?

It has come with a hefty price tag. Saskatchewan public debt has soared to a record $17.7 billion and will be $23.1 billion in four years.

And even if we accept that the Sask. Party government has been doing more than just building monuments to its time in office, there are growing questions about whether it has become too much of a priority for this government — at least, compared with providing services.

Did the Sask. Party push the pendulum too far in the building direction? Are we to the point where we can no longer fill those new buildings with the people and services for which they were built?

It’s a valid question when it comes to new schools to meet the needs of a growing population. New schools need more teachers and especially support staff.

However, it also applies to the Jim Pattison Children’s Hospital being built adjacent to the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon.

Possibly because so much of the money raised for this project — including Pattison’s own generous $50-million donation — has come from well-meaning private donors, there hasn’t been as many questions about the services in this facility suiting Saskatchewan’s most critical needs. Certainly, specialized equipment, pediatric and maternal newborn fellowships, a pediatric endowment research fund and operating cost fund endowment will all make Saskatchewan a better place.

But in a province besieged by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other issues, it is passing strange that this hospital will open next year without in-patient beds for children and teens dealing with mental health issues. Moreover, its recruiting plan does not yet include child psychiatrists or psychologists in a city where there is now a two-year wait for a child psychiatrist visit.

Even in Saskatchewan children’s advocate Corey O’Soup’s annual report — criticized this week for being a bit too soft — this important point was not missed. “Our children and youth are literally dying while waiting for service,” O’Soup wrote.

To be fair, there are plans to continue admitting children to the 10-bed unit at the Dubé Centre for Mental Health — another centre whose existence is a result of a generous private donation.

But consider O’Soup’s point on the special need for mental health services in the north. Couldn’t this be partly addressed by greater emphasis on child mental health services at the Jim Pattison Children’s Hospital?

And consider the sometimes-missed correlation between physical and mental health recovery for children dealing with everything from childhood cancer to trauma recovery. Consider how we are supposedly more aware of the overall need for mental health services in the province.

As New Democratic social services critic Trent Wotherspoon noted: “It’s a massive oversight and a missed opportunity.”

Yes, it’s great to have new building. Credit the Sask. Party government for making the Saskatchewan Hospital in North Battleford such a priority.

But let us not lose sight of the fact that a building is less important than the services it provides.