The recent survey commissioned by the Sewage Treatment Action Group has been greatly misrepresented in recent media coverage and outrageously by the Capital Regional District with its premature attempts to discredit it before any results had been published.
The survey, to which more than 2,300 residents of Saanich, Oak Bay and Victoria responded, found that 76 per cent had concerns over the CRD’s proposed sewage-treatment project, and that most had lost confidence in the CRD’s regional waste-management capability. They also wanted an independent project review and an innovative new project plan.
To call this survey bogus is disrespectful to the people who participated. Thousands of ordinary citizens used it as a way to show both their continued frustration with the CRD’s failed public participation process and their belief that the project does not achieve the best environmental and social results at the lowest cost to the region’s taxpayers.
We sought responses to a survey using a tested technique with a proven track record, carried out by an independent research company. At no time did we claim that the survey was a scientific poll (a look back at the last provincial election shows that the reliability of such scientific polling is still in question).
Our survey was totally up-front. It consisted of an introduction, identifying ourselves and stating our own concerns. Then came a two-tiered questionnaire, and a thank-you message with an invitation to contact us by email or phone. The full text of the questions was released with the results.
We received hundreds of emails and phone calls. These provided feedback that we will use to engage the public at the next opportunity.
CRD has charged that the survey “misinformed” participants — yet there was no misinformation in our introduction, which stated that our group is concerned about chemical and pharmaceutical discharge into the ocean after secondary treatment.
Albert Sweetnam, Seaterra Program director, has made multiple allegations and stated that “the only answer a reasonable person could provide is yes,” yet the results of the survey clearly refute his statement: one in four respondents (562 people) answered “no” — that they were not concerned about this project.
If the survey results are so much in doubt to the CRD, then our challenge is obvious: conduct independent scientific polling and prove us wrong.
Freedom-of-information requests going back to at least 2012 reveal that the CRD has not done any polling or research to determine public approval for its problem-plagued sewage project. The CRD has not made any public statements about public opinion, other than to criticize our survey and offer its own opinion that “a silent majority” supports the project.
Is there any evidence behind that Nixonian rejoinder?
In our opinion, suggested polling questions such as “Do you favour discharging sewage into the ocean?” and “Are residents for or against treatment?” are worthless questions to ask at this point in time. Treatment has been mandated by senior government regulations, the CRD project has serious problems and the public wants an independent review and a better project.
If the CRD is unwilling to respond to our challenge to carry out what it deems to be a serious poll that asks the public whether or not people are concerned about the sewage plan and want an independent review, we suggest that CRD directors place a referendum question on the November municipal ballot that asks the public if they want to stay with the present project or take the time to develop an innovative plan.
Whether or not CRD directors agree to this, it seems inevitable that a region-wide confidence vote on the project will come in the November elections.
Richard Atwell is director of the Sewage Treatment Action Group.
