Let's talk about it.

After watching the former President of UNB, John McLaughlin, interact with the public on one of his public sessions as head of the natural gas panel (way back when), I remember thinking if there was a way to have him visit every New Brunswick household, sit down and have a coffee or tea, and talk through the issues, at least we would all be working from the same set of facts. McLaughlin has a way of engagement that is disarming and that builds trust.

Speaking to a group of business leaders last week, one asked me what is one thing I would do if I was running the shop in New Brunswick. I was tempted to say “economic development plan” or “better economic opportunity development” or people attraction or something but because I could only give one answer I said “a broad-based and deeper engagement with the public across the province”.

It’s common now to say that xx will not get done without social license or yy will never go ahead without First Nations support or that politicians will not make big decisions anymore if they are concerned about public opinion. On one hand, this is just a reflection of democratic politics (supplemented by the recent brainwave that First Nations share the land). But, if it leads to paralysis and exacerbation of trends that are going to harm the province longer term, then we have to find a way.

So if politicians and leaders are not going to strong arm stuff through - then we need to do more to engage the public. Not just those willing to engage but the vast majority that are just going about their lives and paying only superficial interest in politics, economic development and other themes that impact us all.

What are the big issues that are rife with misinformation? There are a wide range of issues from trade and immigration to natural resources development, health care and education and the sustainability of large annual budget deficits, among others.

Let me be clear. I’m not suggesting here that I have some ironclad perfect model for all these issues and all that needs to happen is people need to agree with me. I could be wrong about a lot of things (e.g. I think we should start paying out-of-pocket for basic health care services to ensure sustainable and timely access to services that would bankrupt most of us or I think we should start using pilot projects in K-12 education all over the province such as sending our best and brightest young teachers to rural schools. I also think we should tax land in high tourism potential areas far more than in low tourism potential areas to encourage development). I have dozens more of those crazy ideas. I’m probably only right a small share of the time.

No, the point of engagement is to a) explain clearly the extent of our current challenges (e.g. nearly 40% of people in Gloucester County will be retired in 10 years) and b) set a basic factual foundation on which the public can make informed decisions.

If people are working from a widely varying set of ‘facts’, then our democracy is in trouble. There should be no time when the work fact is put in brackets but that is the world we are living today.

So how do you do that besides putting John McLaughlin at the kitchen table in every home across the province?

Here are a few ideas.

One, much more engagement of local government. One of the few downsides of the recent municipal reform is that people are getting further away from mayor and council. I would put public engagement on the big issues facing the local community much more squarely on the municipal government agenda - mainly because the issues can vary widely from community to community but also because municipal government is local - on the ground.

Two, I’m not sure how to harness it but we have thousands of churches and social groups and other places of gathering in the local community that are still important places for information sharing. Maybe we could have a Powerpoint presentation during Chase the Ace? Or a demographic realities panel discussion during the intermission at a local high school hockey game? Again, this should all be hyper-local. Who has credibility in the local community and can speak with authority on the big issues facing the community?

Three, better use of the traditional media to disseminate facts. At one point local newspapers, as one example, seemed to do a better job of explaining the big issues to people - through both the news and editorial pages. That might be just my bias - but I think there seems to be more ‘on one hand, on the other’ - when it comes to important public policy issues. In some cases, the one hand is much more important than the other.

Four, better use of emerging tools. I was surprised recently to have a young person in their 20s explain how their peers are increasingly anti-immigrant, anti-development and anti- a bunch of other things. Maybe social media could be better used to disseminate actual facts about the state of things?

Finally, when I discuss this will colleagues they mostly say a robust campaign like this would still only touch a small share of the population because most people are tuned out. They are going about their business - having lives - and raising kids - and dealing with the family budget - or aging parents. There are a hundred things more important than listening to a presentation about demographics, health care and fiscal sustainability.

The few chances I get to speak with folks outside of my orbit (yes, that is you reader), I do find many are surprised and interested when I raise important issues.

I think there is much more that could be done to get people directly engaged in the big conversations that impact their lives. Get the facts on the table. People will still disagree but from a mostly shared set of facts.

That will strengthen democracy and, hopefully, public policy outcomes.