Editorial

November 29, 2005

Published in the November 30, 2005 edition of Front Page News, the daily news publication of the Holland College Journalism Department.

By Daniel Mark Wheaton

One issue dominated health care debate in the legislature this week: recruiting family physicians for Prince Edward Island.

According to the governing Progressive Conservatives, the province is doing a good job attracting doctors. They’re content with the current number because they believe it will grow within a few months.

The Liberals aren’t so content. They want not only more physicians practising on the Island, but also more funded physician positions.

One statement made in the legislature this week left opposition members, journalists, and citizens wondering the same thing:

Where does Health Minister Chester Gillan get his numbers?

One number in particular stood out: 63.

Responding to questions about recruiting family physicians for rural Prince Edward Island, Gillan stated:

“Of those six vacant positions, we have at least 63 per cent probability that in the next few months those six positions are going to be filled.”

Later, he suggested the probability might even be 65 per cent.

“We have a 63 per cent to 65 per cent very good probability that we’re going to be able to fill those rural positions in the very near future.”

The next day, Opposition Leader Robert Ghiz challenged the minister’s mathematics.

Ghiz said he had consulted an actuary—someone who specializes in probability and statistics—and the actuary couldn’t determine how the minister had arrived at the figure.

So Ghiz asked the minister directly.

He even joked:

“Has the minister taken advice from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation?”

Gillan replied:

“It was very simple mathematics actually… if there are six vacancies… because of our recruiting strategy… we have started to contact individuals and to find out, would you be interested, could you make us a promise…”

I was still wondering.

And as a journalism student, I did what journalists do best when they’re left wondering.

I asked a question.

I asked the minister:

“What is the formula you use to determine the mathematical probability of the government’s ability to fill family physician positions on P.E.I.?”

His response was straightforward:

“There’s six vacancies and we think that we have four.”

Then he clarified:

“I wasn’t talking about any mathematical formulas. I wasn’t talking about statistics.”

“Until somebody signs, we can’t count them as assured that they’re going to be here.”

I understand that.

But that’s not a 63 per cent probability.

If the government believes four of six positions will likely be filled, that’s simply an estimate based on ongoing recruitment—not a statistically meaningful probability.

Words matter, especially when discussing public policy.

If government ministers use mathematical language such as probability, the public has every right to ask what that probability is based on.

Otherwise, numbers risk sounding more authoritative than they really are.

Good government depends on more than confidence.

It depends on clarity.