Treaty referendum no laughing matter

by Angus Reid

Vancouver Sun Op-Ed, April 5, 2002

Neil Postman, the American humanist and educator, tells the story of two monks who seek guidance from Rome on the matter of smoking and prayer. "Is it permissible," writes the first monk, "to smoke when I pray?" "Absolutely not," writes back the Vatican, "prayer is a sacred act not to be corrupted by the worldly addiction of tobacco." The second monk worded his question slightly differently: "Is it permissible to pray when I smoke?" To this question came a strong affirmative: "There is never a time when you should not pray!"

I was reminded of this story when I opened the aboriginal referendum package that came in the mail earlier this week. Thirty years in the polling business have taught me that even the most seemingly insignificant choices of wording can produce a huge difference in response. The reason, of course, is that citizens' attitudes are rarely as consistent and logical as we might expect. Part of this is because the very nature of reality is often vexing and inconsistent: Yes, we all want to go to heaven, but no, we don't want to die. Part of the inconsistency in public opinion is a function of language: What does it really mean to be "somewhat" satisfied with the performance of Jean Chretien? These subtleties make polling an art and create lots of room for mischief as special-interest groups try to manipulate the form and wording of questions on public opinion to try to gain the upper hand. In this context the British Columbia aboriginal referendum is one of the most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge the public will that I have seen in my professional career. Though we can be justifiably concerned about the cost of this initiative, its deeper harm comes in the false picture it will give of the true state of attitudes on this complex question and, even worse, its pretense that this kind of flimsy exercise is a legitimate way to divine the public will.

One of the fundamental rules of polling is that there is little to be gained in asking a question that almost everyone will answer the same way. If an issue is indeed the subject of intense debate, then why pose motherhood questions? Over the years a great many special-interest groups have come to me wishing to do a poll on "their" issue. Invariably they arrive armed with the list of questions that had not been design to measure the public mood, but rather to prove a point. For example, early in my career a very earnest church group wished to conduct a poll on the abortion/free choice issue. As might be expected their questions included statements like: "The lives of all humans must be protected by the government" or "Babies in a mother's womb have all the characteristics of humans." These questions may seem innocent enough, but finding that over 90 per cent of Canadians agree with both distorts the truth: Had the statement been: "All men and women should have control over their bodies," we would have also found 90 per cent-plus agreement. The public is, in fact, much more divided on this matter. What troubles me about the aboriginal referendum is that many of the eight statements that British Columbians are being asked to respond to fall into the category of one-sided "motherhood" questions. They will produce affirmative answers in the 90-per-cent-plus range and do little if anything to help government negotiators deal with the thorny issue of land claims and treaties. Who would ever say "No" to the statement: "Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians"?

The same observation holds for statements on hunting and fishing, harmonizing land use, leases and licences and resource management. I can't imagine anything short of a landslide of popular sentiment supporting these "principles." But so what? Just because I might support the principle of parks benefiting all British Columbians doesn't mean that I could also support the principle that "As part of the treaty settlement it may be necessary to return some parkland to the aboriginal people."

And then there are the questions that are almost impossible to answer. A friend called me the other day because he was against the expropriation of land for treaty settlements, but didn't know if he should answer question one as "Yes" or "No". This is confusing because the framers of this survey have stated this issue in the negative: "Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements." Rather than choosing the much more straightforward statement: "Private property may be expropriated for treaty settlements," to which my friend could easily answer "No", the referendum uses the more convoluted negative wording so that their side can have the advantage of being on the "Yes" side. How can we take this exercise seriously when the government distorts the ballot in such a way that the answers they are looking for all involve placing an X beside the "Yes" box? Over the years I've seen many examples of polls, some published and others that no respectable polling firm would carry out, which have tried to create a consensus where none existed. The Quebec separatists have become masters at devising questions that will produce the answers they want, even if the public didn't mean to convey that attitude. In the last Quebec referendum over 30 per cent of those voting "Yes" thought that their vote was for a continued presence in the Canadian federation. Since the last Quebec referendum the Canadian Parliament, sanctioned by the Supreme Court, has taken the extraordinary step of enacting legislation to ensure that our future as a nation will never again be subject to a deceptive or misleading referendum. If all that was at stake in the farce playing out in B.C. was the political capital of Gordon Campbell and his colleagues, we could easily laugh this off as just one of those stupid things that new governments sometimes do.

The real danger is that the results will be used by the government to claim moral superiority in the negotiations or, even worse, as a model for future public consultations.

And that's no laughing matter.

Angus Reid is a Vancouver-based consultant and a senior fellow at the UBC Institute for the Study of Global Issues.

Back to Top