Volume 5, Number 9

October 1992

THE REFERENDUM PART II: The Arguments For and Against the Accord

Although constitutional bickering has been described as a Canadian past-time, the last few years have had more than their share of constitutional panels, discussions and media interviews. Despite this seeming overload of information and focus on the constitution, the 1992 Charlottetown Referendum still saw great numbers of Canadians interested and involved in the campaign and its outcome.

The public sought evaluations and interpretations of what the agreement in principle would mean to their futures. The Globe and Mail, Financial Post, and other Canadian dailies ran full-page features outlining the various clauses and providing analyses of the Agreement. The Globe and Mail found that their October 7 initial print run of 50,000 copies were sold out in three days. The newspaper reprinted another 100,000 to fill the demand. [Globe and Mail (1992) "Notice to our Readers," October 17, p. A.1.] Not only did the public seek information on the Charlottetown Accord, but they voted in numbers equal to those for the last federal election campaign. [Filip Palda reports that voter turnout for the 1988 federal election was 75 percent. Palda, Filip (1992) Election Finance Regulation in Canada. (Vancouver, The Fraser Institute). According to the Chief Electoral Officer, turnout for the referendum was 72 percent, excluding Quebec. According to the Quebec equivalent, the Quebec voter turnout was 78 percent.]

Given this interest in the referendum, what substantive information did the public receive from national television news? This second of a two part series on the referendum examines which substantive arguments presented by the "Yes" and "No" supporters were presented on the networks.

CBC GIVES MORE "NO" ARGUMENTS; CTV MORE "YES"

On CBC, "No" arguments outnumbered "Yes" arguments by 10 percentage points. In real numbers, on CBC there were 1,971 statements arguing for a "No" vote compared to 1,599 stating that one should vote "Yes." On CTV, "Yes" arguments outnumbered "No" by 15 percentage points.

As figure A illustrates, a variety of arguments were brought forward to encourage individuals to vote "Yes." They ranged from getting Quebec in the Constitution to the economic benefits, and from arguments that aboriginal rights would be entrenched to the securing of Senate reform. As well, these arguments outlined the various positive attributes of the clauses negotiated in the Charlottetown Accord. The various reasons given for voting "Yes" totalled 44 percent of CBC and 26 percent of CTV attention.

Click here to view Figure A: Reasons to Vote "Yes"

Thirteen percent of CBC and 18 percent of CTV arguments made in favour of the Accord were unsubstantiated. For example, claims were made that ratification of the accord would end constitutional bickering, or merely that it was a good deal. On the 7 September 1992 "CTV News," Lloyd Robertson reported why Canadians said they were going to vote "Yes": "Our poll also found there was only a slim majority of support across Canada for the agreement and many people say they would vote for it just because they are tired of the constitutional debate. . . . But much of the support for the agreement comes from people who are tired of the constitutional debate and want it to end. That number--a staggering 49 percent. Forty six percent would vote for the agreement because they think it's a good deal."

"Yes" Arguments use Fear Tactics

The two networks presented different main arguments for voting "Yes." On CBC, the "Yes" debate was divided between specific arguments in favour of the various clauses outlined in the Accord, and warning of negative effects that would follow if there was a "No" vote. The 12 October 1992 Maclean's magazine headline dubbed this "The Fear Factor." [Maclean's (1992) "The Fear Factor: Will Fright Make Canadians Vote Yes?" October 12.] Each of these arguments comprised slightly more than one-fifth of CBC's attention to "Yes" arguments (22 percent). On CTV, the clauses comprised only 6 percent of "Yes" arguments, but the fear arguments comprised over two-fifths of the total arguments.

Quebec Separation and Negative Economic Effects Lead "Yes" Campaign

Figure B shows that while subjects such as the possibility of civil war and a "No" vote being bad for natives were mentioned, the most talked-about reasons to vote "Yes" were the threat of Quebec separation and the warning of negative economic effects. For example, on the 18 September 1992 "National," Knowlton Nash reported: "Thomas D'Aquino of the business council on national issues said a `No' vote could hurt the Canadian economy." Similarly, on the 23 September 1992 "CTV National News," Peter Murphy reported: "Prime Minister Brian Mulroney raised the temperature in the referendum campaign. Speaking to business leaders in London, Ontario, Mulroney warned of dire economic consequences if the constitutional reform package is rejected." Mulroney was then quoted: "It must be approached, I think, knowing that the quagmire that would result following a rejection of the Charlottetown agreement, is beyond anything that Canadians can reasonably afford."

Click here to view Figure B: Negative Effects of a "No" Vote

Over one-quarter of both networks' attention to the negative effects of a "No" vote were on Quebec separation. On the 19 October 1992 "Journal," Brian Mulroney outlined his reasons for using this argument: "On, on the contrary. Allen Greg said to me, and he's the best pollster in the business: `If you don't get in there, if you don't get in there in a very serious way and make sure that the realities of this are fully explained to Quebeckers and to Canadians, that there is an important chance that this could slip away for entirely different reasons, because Parizeau's message was getting across.' He was saying, `Look it, I am just kind of like a good old Canadian here, I'm just part of the "No" committee, let's all get together, one big happy family and say "No," it's not gonna hurt very much, and on the night of 26th we'll all be Canadians together.' Nonsense; that's not what he intends, intends to do at all. What he intends to do is construe a `No' victory as a repudiation of a federalist government, namely, Robert Bourassa's, and he then intends to begin a march towards independence in the 18 months leading up to the campaign, and then, he has said, if we win the provincial election within eight months, I will cause to be held a referendum on the independence of Quebec, and if I am successful, 365 days thereafter, there will be the equivalent of a unilateral declaration of independence. That is very bad news for Canada, and I think Canadians should be aware of it. And I don't want Canadians down the road to say, how come the prime minister didn't tell us? Why didn't he warn us? And so what I tried to do was to tell the truth as I see it, and to be direct and forthcoming with the people of Canada, not to scare anybody, simply to lay out the facts."

What is ironic about the arguments presented on the news for voting "Yes" was that "Yes" representatives focused on the negative effects of a "No" vote twice as often as they did on the positive economic benefits which would result from a "Yes" vote. Thirty percent of CBC and 25 percent of CTV attention to the negative impact of a "No" vote consisted of arguments stating that a "No" vote would be bad for the economy.

"NO" AND "YES" ARGUMENTS EQUALLY VARIED

Arguments rejecting the Charlottetown Accord were as varied as those supporting the Agreement, as figure C shows. Substantive arguments, including that Quebec powers would be compromised or that social programs would be at risk, along with specific criticisms of the clauses in the Charlottetown Accord, comprised half of CBC and over one-third of CTV attention to the "No" arguments. For example, on the 21 September 1992 CTV News, Craig Oliver reported: "As he left the event, Mulroney was told by a waiting bystander that self-government for natives was a mistake."

Click here to view Figure C: Reasons to Vote "No"

Weak arguments, such as the campaign rhetoric which said that a "No" vote was not a vote against Quebec, or merely that the deal was a bad one, comprised 8 percent of CBC and 14 percent of CTV attention to "No" Arguments.

In contrast to the "Yes" side which tended to focus on the negative effects of a "No" vote as a reason to vote "Yes," arguments saying that there would be negative results of a "Yes" vote comprised only 5 percent of each network's coverage. Instead, the "No" side put slightly more emphasis on arguments outlining the positive effects of a "No" vote than on the negative effects of a "Yes" vote.

On CTV, criticisms of the referendum process comprised a significant proportion of "No" arguments. Almost one-fifth of CTV's coverage of the "No" arguments made the case that the way in which the referendum was being handled was an indication of how bad the deal was. On CBC, criticisms of the process of the referendum comprised 9 percent of "No" arguments.

The area where CBC did focus the "No" arguments was in the specific clauses of the accord. One-third of CBC compared to one-tenth of CTV coverage of the "No" arguments examined specific clauses.

"NO" SEEN AS WINNING DURING CAMPAIGN

Despite predictions of a possible "Yes" victory in most provinces, the focus on the horse race part of the coverage clearly centred on the "No" side being in the lead. Over one-quarter of CBC and one-quarter of CTV coverage of the horse race discussed the fact that the "No" side was in the lead. Statements favouring the "Yes" side comprised only 10 percent of CBC and 13 percent of CTV horse race statements.

Click here to view Figure D: The Horse Race

In addition, both networks presented more opinions claiming that the "Yes" side was behind than it was in the lead. 14 percent of CBC coverage stated that the "Yes" side was behind compared to 10 percent claiming it was in the lead. Similarly, on CTV 17 percent of the horse race statements indicated that the "Yes" side was losing ground compared to 13 percent which said they were leading the race.

CLAUSES EMPHASIZE THE SENATE

Specific clauses comprised 15 percent of CBC's and 3 percent of CTV's total attention to the referendum campaign. Half of CBC's and one-third of CTV's coverage of the clauses was neutral. Of the remainder, twice as many criticisms as supportive statements were made about specific clauses in the Charlottetown Accord.

In examining total discussion of the clauses in the Accord, the most frequently mentioned area was the Senate. One-quarter of CBC and over one-third of CTV attention to the clauses examined the proposed changes to the Senate. On CBC, this coverage was predominately neutral, comprising slightly over half of the statements on the Senate. On CTV, neutral descriptions of the Senate comprised only one-fifth of the attention.

In their assessments, both networks provided more criticisms than supportive comments. On CBC twice as many and on CTV three times as many negative as positive evaluations of the proposed Senate were presented. For example, on the 15 September 1992 "National" Denise Harrington reported on the possible problems with the proposed Senate reforms: "But the deal doesn't guarantee Senate elections, Molgat cautions; it gives provincial governments the power to appoint Senators." Present Senator Gil Molgat was then quoted: "What I'm afraid of, in the present change, is that instead of having Senators, let's say, patronage appointments of the Federal government, they will become patronage appointments of provincial governments and that would be worse."

CTV Praises Native Self-Government

On CTV, native self-government comprised 29 percent of its attention to the Accord's clauses compared with 15 percent of CBC's coverage. While CBC provided neutral descriptions in roughly half of the attention, CTV presented just under half of the coverage as neutral. Of assessments, CTV was more likely than CBC to provide positive commentary. On CTV positive assessments were heard three times as frequently as negative assessments. On CBC, almost twice as many unfavourable assessments of aboriginal self-government were presented. On the 17 October 1992 "National," for example,

". . . outside of Quebec, 52 percent still oppose the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society."

Karen Webb reported: "Chiefs who were at the assembly say the big issue was financing. There's no constitutional guarantee that federal and provincial governments will pay for self-government. That was left to a weaker political agreement. That left many chiefs, particularly from Ontario and Manitoba, wondering if all they were getting was the constitutional entrenchment of self-governing poverty."

Changes to the House of Commons

Both networks discussed the proposed changes to the House of Commons in roughly the same proportion. On CBC it comprised 12 percent of its coverage of the clauses, while on CTV it comprised 13 percent of the attention. Half of the coverage on both networks was neutral. Of the remainder, both networks provided twice as many unfavourable as favourable assessments. On the 7 September 1992 "CTV News," Lloyd Robertson described the results of a poll which found that "[o]nly 12 percent of Canadians say they strongly support these changes to the constitution. And many have problems with individual parts of it. For example, a huge 78 percent in the West oppose more seats in the House of Commons for Ontario and Quebec and outside of Quebec, 52 percent still oppose the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society."

CBC Explains Unity, Diversity

The difference in volume of attention to the details of the Charlottetown Accord between the networks is explained by the fact that CBC's "Journal" devoted several nights to describing and explaining each clause. In the "Journal's" "Voter Guide to the Referendum" all clauses were discussed. One of the most far-reaching was the Unity and Diversity Clause. This section included the Canada Clause. CBC explained this clause in 18 percent of its attention to the constitution. In contrast, only 11 percent of CTV attention on the clauses examined this issue. Half of CBC and one-fifth of CTV coverage on the Unity and Diversity Clause was neutral. Of the remainder, however, both networks provided twice as many criticisms as positive comments.

QUEBEC ISSUES GIVEN MAJORITY OF ATTENTION

Every statement made about the Accord was analyzed according to its geographic focus. Two-thirds of CBC and just over half of CTV attention described the issue as national. Of the remainder, Quebec was the region most discussed. On CBC, over half of the coverage on the regions focused on Quebec. On CTV over two-thirds of the coverage centred on that province.

Western provinces comprised over one-quarter of CBC and less than one-quarter of CTV attention to the regions. In contrast, Ontario received only 7 percent of each network's coverage. Atlantic Canada received 7 percent of CBC and 2 percent of CTV attention. The North was given .3 percent of CBC's attention.

"YES" SIDE SOURCES GIVEN MORE AIR TIME

Despite the negative attention that the "Yes" side received for its campaign strategies and execution, its position was still presented more often than the "No" side.

As figure E illustrates, almost half of CBC's and half of CTV's sources' statements originated with individuals who supported the Charlottetown Accord. "No" supporters provided one-third of CBC (34 percent) and over one-quarter (27 percent) of CTV attention to the Accord.

Click here to view Figure E: Comparing Sources: Yes, No, Undecided and Undeclared

Undecided individuals comprised 5 percent of CBC and 1 percent of CTV sources' statements. The remaining 17 percent of CBC and 22 percent of CTV sources statements were from individuals who spoke in general terms and could not be identified as either "Yes" or "No" supporters.

Television Focuses on "Yes" Side Politicians

The media, especially television, have been criticized by a number of scholars for being too preoccupied with the personality of prominent citizens. The criticism is that when deciding if an event is newsworthy, they focus on the leader or public official making a statement rather than on the value of the statement itself.4

The prominence of the "Yes" side politicians gave the "Yes" side a strategic advantage in getting their message out. Sixty-four percent of CBC and 69 percent of CTV "Yes" side sources were politicians. Interestingly, while television focused much attention on the leaders, this did not necessarily proved to be advantageous for either campaign.

"No" Side Sources Also Emphasize Politicians

While fewer prominent politicians declared themselves "No" supporters, those who did enjoyed more attention than other "No" sources. Almost one third of CBC and almost half of CTV "No" side sources were politicians. The focus on leaders which initiated some of this attention came from former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. Of the "No" politicians, Trudeau comprised 16 percent of each of CBC's and CTV's sources' statements.

Individuals from the "No" committee, such as Deborah Coyne, received 22 percent of CBC's and 21 percent of CTV's sources' statements.

There were also sharp differences in the types of "No" sources utilized by the networks. CBC relied heavily on "No" side experts who appeared in "Journal" panel debates on the referendum. In contrast, experts comprised only 1 percent of "No" side sources on CTV, but the so-called average Canadian was used in 12 percent of the statements by sources who indicated that they opposed the Charlottetown Accord.

In general, more general public opinions rejecting the Charlottetown Accord than supporting it were heard on the networks. On CBC, almost twice as many "No" opinions by the public were heard than "Yes" opinions. On CTV, there were slightly more "No" than "Yes" opinions presented by the public.

CTV PREDICTS "NO" VICTORY

In terms of predicting the outcome of the referendum, CTV was more likely than CBC to predict that there would be a "No" vote. Of all predictions on the outcome of the referendum and the speculation of its future, CTV provided 43 percent which favoured the "No" position. The majority of these predictions centred on whether or not a province would vote "No." Half of the speculation on whether or not a province would vote "No" examined Quebec. Interestingly, CTV also predicted that B.C. and Alberta would vote "No" in the referendum. They did however, also predict that Manitoba and Ontario would be possible "Yes" provinces.

Click here to view Figure F: Predictions and Attitudes on Outcome of Vote

On CBC there was speculation that both Quebec and B.C. were possible "No" provinces. However, that network also had the same number of predictions that B.C. would vote "Yes." In addition, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland were all considered "Yes" provinces by CBC. Neither network identified any of the Maritime provinces or other prairie provinces as possible "No" voters. On CTV predictions that provinces or groups favouring the "Yes" side would in fact vote "Yes" comprised 33 percent of the predictions.

On CBC, the predictions favoured the "Yes" side slightly more often than the "No" side. "Yes" predictions comprised 35 percent of the coverage compared with "No" predictions which were given 31 percent of the attention. CBC was more likely than CTV to speculate on the number of undecided voters (21 verses 12 percent respectively, of CBC and CTV attention to predictions).

METHODOLOGY

Results are based on census samples of 172 CBC "National," 39 "Journal," and 36 "Sunday Report" stories as well as 181 "CTV National News" stories from September 3 to October 25, 1992. All stories appearing during that time were coded, representing a total population rather than a random sample of stories.

Three researchers were employed in coding the news stories. The researchers were selected on the basis of their differing political views. To assess the clarity of the research instrument and measure consistency, tests of inter-coder reliability were conducted throughout the procedure. A high level of intercoder reliability (0.85) was obtained.

Any disagreements in assessments by researchers were discussed, and the rating was changed until consensus was reached on all stories.

Further information or details on the coding design and methods may be obtained by contacting the National Media Archive.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.