We Need Your Help
Alberta refuses to answer a simple question: did its MAiD survey give everyone an equal opportunity to be heard?
We have continued to engage with the Alberta government through the province’s Access to Information process, trying to obtain more information about its public engagement survey on MAiD conducted in late 2024. The government has still not released the survey results publicly, and so far it has been reluctant to provide much of the information we have requested.
One concern we previously wrote about was the possibility that the written comment boxes following some questions were displayed conditionally—that respondents may only have been invited to explain their answer when their response aligned with what appears to have been the Alberta government’s position on MAiD.
We still cannot say with certainty that this happened. That is precisely why we requested the survey logic, branching logic, skip logic, or conditional display rules governing the survey’s comment fields. Instead, we received a collection of internal emails that was almost entirely redacted and did not answer the questions we were asking.
Information released to us today has strengthened our concerns.
Question 8 of the survey asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement:
“The health care worker gave me information about MAiD in a way I could understand.”
Among those who answered, the response was overwhelmingly positive. A total of 78.3% agreed or strongly agreed, while 11.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. Only 3.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed, with the remainder either unsure or preferring not to answer.
Question 9 then asked respondents to explain their answer in fewer than 250 words. There were 191 written responses.
The very first comment stated:
“The health care worker did give information [in] a way that was understandable and ethical but it looks like you only want additional comments that agree with your government’s perspective.”
That comment immediately stood out because it closely reflects the concern we raised in our previous article. In the earlier records, several respondents appeared to suggest that they could not access a written comment box unless they changed their answer to one that aligned with the government’s position.
The remaining comments only made the discrepancy more striking. Of the 191 responses to Question 9, we identified only one that was clearly and unambiguously positive about the information received from a health-care provider (the one above). One additional respondent said the information had been clearly explained, but also stated that they opposed MAiD and considered it unethical. Another 12 comments were unclear about whether the respondent believed the information had been understandable or whether they agreed or disagreed with MAiD.
By our calculation, approximately 93% of the written comments were clearly consistent with disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement in Question 8 or a general opposition to MAiD (24 state they wanted information but couldn’t get it). Yet only 3.3% of respondents who answered Question 8 actually selected one of those responses.
There may, of course, be another explanation for this discrepancy. Response bias is one possibility. But when nearly four out of five respondents selected a positive answer, yet only one of 191 comments clearly reflected that same positive experience, the discrepancy becomes difficult to dismiss as simply a matter of who chose to leave a comment.
We have now written back to the Alberta government explaining that the disclosure did not provide the records we requested. We are again seeking the survey logic, branching and skip logic, conditional display rules, platform configuration records and any other documentation showing when respondents were permitted to access the written comment fields. We have also asked, if possible, for access to a functioning or archived copy of the survey so that this can be tested directly.
This is where we could use some help.
Our audience includes people with a wide range of professional backgrounds and experience, and access-to-information disputes are still relatively new territory for us. We are learning as we go, but the evidence raises a serious question about whether everyone who completed this government consultation was given the same opportunity to explain their answers.
If you have experience contesting an access-to-information release, working with survey platforms, reviewing conditional survey logic or dealing with Alberta’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, we would be grateful for any guidance. In particular, we would like to know whether there are other records we should be requesting, other arguments we should be making, or another plausible explanation for the dramatic difference between the multiple-choice results and the written comments.
We also believe there may be an important public-interest story here. At minimum, the records raise serious questions about whether everyone who completed Alberta’s MAiD survey was given the same opportunity to explain their answers—and the government has so far not provided the information needed to resolve those questions. If you work in media, know a journalist who may be interested, or have a contact at a news organization who covers Alberta politics, health policy, government transparency or access to information, we would be grateful for an introduction. We are happy to share the records we have obtained, our analysis of the responses and the correspondence relating to our efforts to obtain the survey logic.
Whatever someone’s position on MAiD, a public consultation should be conducted transparently, and every participant should have an equal opportunity to be heard. We do not yet know with certainty whether the comment fields were conditionally restricted. But we believe the evidence is strong enough that the question deserves a clear answer—and possibly much greater public attention.
Thank you for supporting our work,
Paul and Kim
Thank you for the work you are doing on behalf of present and future dying and suffering Albertans. Danielle Smith has deprived Albertans of their freedom of choice.
The PC/UCP party has a long dishonourable tradition of manufacturing consent in Alberta.
PC / UCP party astroturfing paid by the taxpayer has been deployed to frame party-aligned policy direction in constitutional, education, healthcare, environmental, industrial development and regulatory matters for decades.
The PC/UCP cannot be trusted to "fair deal".
Their butchers thumbs are always on the scale.