Loaded Quebec question was campaign’s tipping point
It’s a refrain heard during every election: polls have too much influence and should be banned, as some disinform more than inform.
The debate about the impact of scientific polls and their interpretation have on voters won’t soon be resolved. But one thing is clear in this campaign in search of a ballot question: a pollster’s question asked during a leaders’ debate few watched in Quebec changed the course of this election in Canada.
Most market researchers are familiar with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, also commonly referred to as the observer effect. German physicist Werner Heisenberg proved that you can know the position or the motion of a particle, but not both at the same time. Every attempt to know these features somehow alters the particle. The measurement tools themselves introduce changes in the subject. In surveys, the question itself and the way it is phrased can introduce new thoughts in the respondent’s mind.
It did not immediately happen on Sept. 9 during the opening of the English language debate, when pollster-turnedmoderator Shachi Kurl asked this question to Bloc Québécois Leader YvesFrançois Blanchet: “You denied that Quebec has problems with racism, yet you defend legislation such as bills 96 and 21, which marginalize religious minorities, anglophones and allophones. Quebec is recognized as a distinct society but for those outside the province, please help them understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws?”
Blanchet’s reaction was swift, while the other leaders stayed silent until the next day. Few in Quebec were watching the debate following the two French debates. And the question wasn’t asked directly to Quebec voters. However, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle had its full effect in the following days. The always delicate issue of identity became a galvanizing ballot question in Quebec. One that nationalists — not just ardent Bloc Québécois supporters — made sure was amplified and remained top of mind for the remainder of the campaign. The message was clear and potent: Quebecers were attacked by the rest of Canada for their discriminatory laws.
The Bloc leader, who until then had run a lacklustre campaign and was increasingly seen as arrogant and out of touch, was given a gift from heaven. One he desperately needed after Quebec Premier François Legault all but endorsed Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole. Legault added fuel to the fire calling this an “attack on all Quebecers” — an odd choice of words that made headlines on 9/11. Le Journal de Montréal, Québec’s most-read newspaper, kept the story alive and made sure Quebecers would not soon forget the insult.
In a province known for its fickle voters, the impact on voting intentions was significant and immediate.
According to the CBC’s Poll Tracker, from the start of the campaign to the eve of the English debate, the Bloc’s support among Quebec voters had dropped from 28 to 25 per cent. On Sept. 16, it was back up to 28 per cent.
In a stunning example of the sort of interference critics say polls can have, Le Journal de Montréal published the results of a Léger poll on Wednesday under the headline “the return of the two solitudes.” The findings show that 65 per cent of Quebecers feel the question asked was inappropriate, while 69 per cent of Canadians living outside Quebec feel it was appropriate. The conclusion: Quebec bashing is real and the rest of Canada does not understand nor accept Quebecers’ need to protect the French language. The implication: send a clear message to the other solitude by voting for the one party whose leader defended Quebec when attacked.
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau called an election hoping for a majority fuelled by increased seats in Quebec. O’Toole made a “contract” with Quebec as the necessary path to forming the government. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh tried to start another orange wave among young voters. The Bloc wasn’t going to play spoiler until the stars aligned that night in Gatineau, when a question in English triggered dormant thoughts in voters’ minds.
No wonder all leaders are now asking the consortium for a formal apology.