I just completed the Ford Government’s latest online budget consultation survey. I discovered it when I was looking at the government’s fall economic statement, which includes the $200 demogrant I discussed in my blog post two weeks ago. My conclusion after completing the survey is that the government has slanted it to enhance support for their preferred policies, rather that attempt, in an unbiased way, to discern the preferences of the electorate. I’ll enumerate the techniques the survey uses.

Flood the Zone

The bolded preamble to several questions starts with the government’s narrative, for example “Ontario is investing in essential public services, and we are attracting record investments in key industries” and “The government recognizes that it is a challenging time in Ontario due to global economic uncertainty, higher interest rates, and stubbornly high inflation.” You could take issue with any one of these assertions, for example by questioning how much is being invested or observing that interest rates are coming down and inflation is now in the Bank of Canada’s two-percent target range.

The survey mentions “reducing gridlock” in the preamble of two questions and in a question about critical infrastructure priorities, one option is “roads, bridges, and highways (to help reduce gridlock and congestion).” Public transit is mentioned in the same question, but not with the explanation that it reduces gridlock and congestion. Earlier this week Bill 212, the “Reducing Gridlock, Saving Your Time Act” received royal assent. A mere coincidence, I’m sure.

Don’t Mention It

Some important options are glaringly absent from the survey. The question about travel and transportation has four options: building roads and highways, building public transit, improving access to northern Ontario, and “solutions that improve traffic congestion in urban areas.” The fourth is presented in an anodyne way. What if the survey included two more controversial options intended to achieve that objective: ripping up bicycle lanes, a key component of Bill 212, and introducing road pricing, which the government has vowed never to do? Including those options would provide a much better gauge of the public’s support for, or opposition to, the government’s transportation policy.

A second type of absence is low-priority policy areas. The question about critical infrastructure that includes roads and transit as options also includes primary and secondary schools. What about colleges and universities? A question about education starts with the government’s narrative “To support Ontario’s growing economy and plan to build, the government is continuing to support skills, development, training and retirement planning for workers. What else should the government prioritize to help encourage and entice workers to in-demand careers?” The alternatives given include sector specific training initiatives, youth employment and training, employment programs for specific populations, and incentivizing people to work in northern and rural Ontario. Again, colleges and universities aren’t mentioned as an option for workforce development.

Another question that begins with the preamble “the government is focused on making life more affordable and providing relief for individuals and families.” Among options like tax benefits and credits and reducing electricity costs, there is an option to “increase financial support for advanced education and skilled trades learning (for example freeze tuition fees).” Freezing tuition fees is, of course, a preferred government policy. But it certainly doesn’t contribute to the objective of increasing financial support for the post-secondary education sector – as the leaders of colleges and universities have long been saying.

Pickles and Ice Cream

In several instances a given option includes things that don’t necessarily fit together, certainly in the minds of some voters. The first question, which begins with the preamble about investing in essential public services and investing in key industries, gives as its first option “continuing investments in critical infrastructure such as roads, highways, hospitals, and schools.” Do you tick this box if you support hospitals and schools but not roads and highways? A question near the end of the survey asks for priorities for government investment and provides as an option “roads, highways, and transit.” You can imagine the same objection here.

Othering

Each question, of course, has the option of “other.” I remember from studying survey design that a good survey sets out as options most of the alternatives that respondents are likely to consider, so that they don’t have to use the “other” box very often. This survey will force respondents who have other views of the public sector priorities than the government’s to use the “other” box a lot. The problem with doing this is that all the answers in that box are difficult to code and analyze, and are ignored, that is to say othered.

A Well-kept Secret

This budget consultation survey is a well-kept secret. You can find it on the Ontario Ministry of Finance website if you know where to look. Or perhaps your MPP will get the word out to their constituents. Given the nature of the survey, I would imagine government MPP’s are more likely to publicize it than opposition MPPs. The easiest way for the government to publicize it would be to take some of the millions of dollars it is spending on feel good advertising (“it’s happening here”) and do some real public service advertising to tell the public about the survey. Don’t hold your breath.

A relatively unbiased and well-publicized survey about public preferences for the government’s budget could be of great assistance in helping the government make budgetary choices. But this survey is far from that ideal. The Ford Government knows how they want to spend your money and this survey is just one more way to market their story.