Two professional pollsters are not impressed with the questions being posed to farmers in the federal government’s barley plebiscite.
They say the wording of the three ballot choices seems designed to highlight the government’s preferred option of creating an open market for barley with the Canadian Wheat Board remaining an active participant in the market.
However, they also believe farmers will be smart enough to see through that and won’t be swayed into voting in a certain way.
“My gut feeling is that the majority of people will get the information package, go through it and be able to decide what option they prefer,” said Curtis Johnson, a senior vice-president with Ipsos Reid.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
In fact, the pollsters say that because the fairness of the plebiscite has been questioned by some farm groups, it may work against the open market option.
“The fact that there is a debate over the wording puts the government on the wrong foot at the start of the debate,” said Greg Lyle, managing director of Innovative Research.
“The first thing that a lot farmers will hear about this plebiscite is the allegation that it’s skewed. Frankly, it would have been easier for the government if they had stuck with similar phrasing all the way through the ballot.”
The options on the ballot are:
- The CWB should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.
- I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.
- The CWB should not have a role in the marketing of barley.
The pollsters’ concerns relate to the different wording for the second option.
They say the words “I would like” tend to personalize the issue for farmers, possibly making it easier for them to identify with that choice. By contrast, the other two options are presented in bureaucratic language.
Both pollsters they would never pose a question that way in their opinion surveys.
“It’s skewed, but it isn’t hopelessly skewed,” said Greg Lyle, managing director of Innovative Research.
“Would it have been better to use consistent parallel language? Yes. Will it fool anyone for more than five minutes? No.”
Johnson said if he was to make any change in the plebiscite, it would be the wording.
“Typically we would have the options completely balanced so that every option is presented as close as possible to the other as you describe what you’re making a decision on,” he said.
That’s especially important for a subject like grain marketing, in which different people have different views of what’s possible and what’s not.
The pollsters say they typically ask a series of question designed to ascertain exactly what the individual farmer really wants.
Previous surveys show results can differ depending on what options are presented and how they’re described.
Some may say they favour they a “voluntary” CWB believing that the agency will continue to operate in an open market. They may be likely to vote for option two.
Others might prefer options like retaining the single desk for the export market while opening the domestic market, or creating a continental open market while retaining the single desk for overseas markets. Neither of those are on the ballot.
“Sometimes it’s a bit of a challenge to figure out what farmers want and what’s possible,” said Johnson. “Those who vote for option two have to understand that they’re voting for a CWB without a single desk.”
While the ballot offers three choices, they say, it’s really a two-way choice. Option one represents the single desk and options two and three represent the open market.
“The real question will be whether two and three combined are greater than one,” said Lyle. “It probably starts out that way, but the question is will it end there.”
