By Nadine Wilson MLA Saskatchewan Rivers Constituency

Flexibility Needs to be Part of Bureaucracy

Jul 17, 2024 | 9:11 AM

“The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Pattison Media and this site.”

Not so long ago the word ‘pivot’ was a buzzword, an approach that allowed businesses and organizations to survive in challenging times. The key to success was the speed at which one could pivot from the usual to re-imagine new, more efficient ways to provide services.

During my summer tour of Saskatchewan Rivers, I have been made aware of how, often, government bureaucracy prevents common-sense solutions.

Case in point. In beautiful Christopher Lake sits a modern facility equipped to provide Level 4 care for 10 beds. Walking in, it feels like ‘home’, not an institution. Owner Karrie Elliot tells me everything she needs to open is in place including staff and a wait list of clients. Unfortunately for those clients, Elliott’s business model does not ‘fit’ the governments’ existing programs.

Elliott, who is a registered psychiatric nurse, has seen many youth and young adults with complex needs languishing in long term care homes designed to care for seniors. Her passion, is to provide a home-like environment, focused on quality of life, youthful activities and a youthful environment for those patients, while also delivering specialized nursing care.

Trials

Shooting victim credits video game for ability to identify gun

1h ago

Escape

Inmate escapes P.A. healing lodge

4h ago

China retaliates over EV tariffs with anti-dumping probe into Canadian canola imports

5h ago

But Level 4 care does not come at the same cost as a regular group home. Registered nurses for round-the-clock care must be employed and with that comes extra costs like medical liability insurance at $40,000 per year. Elliott has, with the support of notable advocates, been asking the government to fund the facility including the extra costs since 2021. She has made several presentations to government committees at the Saskatchewan Legislature.

The government’s response has been to tell Elliott to create a model that fits their checklist. Government is willing to fund nurses wages, but everything else must be paid for by the patients or their families.

Given that most adult patients would be on some type of Social Services benefit, (Long Term Care Home Supplement or Sask Assured Income for Disabilities), patients have no means to pay their own way for that level of care. So, the governments’ own funding models don’t provide enough income for these people to pay for their care within the government system.

And so, families continue to struggle to provide complex-needs care for their young-adult loved ones in their own homes or put them in senior’s facilities. They are forced to compete with other families for scarce resources. Many parents spend their senior years caring for adult children even while they themselves may develop health challenges.

Where is the fresh, innovative thinking that we enjoyed when the Sask Party first won the right to govern? Why has it devolved into bloated bureaucracy with layers of over-regulation? Why does it insist on one-size-fits-all policies which paralyze entrepreneurs, municipal councils and even local boards charged with administering government programs?

An example of this regulation paralysis is easily seen with the state of Housing Authorities in the province.

It is becoming common knowledge that many low-income units sit vacant across the province, while potential renters who don’t quite meet regulation, are not allowed to rent them. Other units sit in disrepair, with no budget to fix them.

In some cases, good renters have even been evicted because their income has risen slightly above the income cap. If there is no-where else in the community to rent, that family leaves the community, creating a ripple-effect loss for everyone including the government. This is not wise use of our tax dollars.

Why can’t local boards, particularly in rural areas, be empowered with flexibility to make common-sense adjustments based on evolving community needs?

There are dozens of other examples that could be cited, but the bottom line is ‘big-picture’ policy often defeats local level common-sense. We need to provide the gatekeepers with enough flexibility to carry out the ‘spirit’ of the regulation rather than be bound to the ‘letter’ of it, based on actual community needs and/or entrepreneurial initiatives.

If we do this, we can bring back the concept that government owes citizens easily-accessed service and value for the taxes they entrust government to manage.