Government’s consultation process supports PERT’S agenda

As a matter of course, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour (NLFL) is ready to engage whenever there are government-led consultations on issues that matter to workers. The public consultation on the recently released Premier’s Economic Recovery Team (PERT) report is a case in point where the future of government programs and public services is at stake.

The NLFL has serious concerns about the PERT public consultation process.

Representing 70,000 union members, public and private, who work in every sector and in every community, means we constantly consult with our affiliates to ensure we are truly representing the voices of workers.

The NLFL has actively engaged in numerous stakeholder consultations, including pre-budget sessions, Workers Compensation Board statutory reviews, and reviews on income tax and minimum wage.

We were pleased to hear Premier Andrew Furey commit to a thorough consultation of the PERT recommendations, prior to any government action. At the start of the public consultations, we encouraged our members to get engaged.

COMPLAINTS RAISED

It did not take long before we were informed by them, and others, that Engagenl’s public questionnaire, while lengthy, failed to allow individuals to properly raise their concerns or dissent.

Polling public opinion is an important endeavor for governments, especially when consulting on public policy decisions, legislative changes, or enacting fiscal measures that will shape our province and impact our residents for decades.

National polls have been a phenomenon in Canada since the 1940s. Defining or framing the issue is an essential construct in the measurement and understanding of public opinion, and is critical in public policy development.

Upon closer examination of Engagenl’s questionnaire, we found it failed miserably to truly measure the public’s views regarding the PERT recommendations.

The questionnaire is misleading and not an appropriate public engagement tool. Our analysis demonstrates the poll is self-serving and uses fallacies and agreement biases to skew results in the favour of the PERT report. Aside from the gathering of demographic information, the remaining 29 questions are overwhelmingly leading, assumptive, loaded, pushy, confusing, double-barreled, close-ended and completely inaccessible.

Many of the questions are framed in a way that does not allow critical thought. Recommendations are characterized in an overly positive light (reduce spending and improve outcomes), making it difficult for anyone to disagree, yet without understanding the intent of the recommendation. Many questions overwhelm respondents by mixing several issues/categories in the one statement, without allowing respondents to qualify their answers.

Questions that lack relevant information encourage respondents to respond in a certain way, which may push them towards an agreement bias, whether they agree or not. One would be hard pressed not to support transparency and accountability in government. But there is no information about what exactly that means, or what government’s plans are if this recommendation is enacted.

LABOUR ANALYSIS

Using standard polling definitions, our analysis of 29 questions shows that 45 per cent could be characterized as leading, 45 per cent assumptive/ loaded, 45 per cent pushy, 55 per cent confusing and 55 per cent double-barreled.

Furthermore, 76 per cent are close-ended, which does not allow for meaningful feedback, and 100 per cent of them use inaccessible language.

Accessible language accommodates the entire public. Plain language serves to include people of all ages and abilities. It is inclusive of those with cognitive disabilities, people with low literacy skills and speakers whose first language is not English.

This questionnaire renders the “consultation” process superfluous, giving the illusion that the public has been given a voice. Framing questions to get a desired result makes this whole exercise bogus.

Misleading the public in this manner is offensive to the residents who want to participate, and to the spirit of a fair and open process. I left PERT because of the lack of consultation and transparency, and an overall feeling that not all perspectives were being considered or appreciated. This consultation is following the exact same path.

I have begun the very onerous process of responding to the stakeholder questionnaire, which gives me little hope that this government is open to any alternatives to Moya Greene’s agenda for austerity; an agenda reflected in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s budget, and sadly one that we already know is designed to stifle economic growth, and create a less fair and more unequal society.

Mary Shortall President, Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour