News

Cultural Diversity: Canada's UN Victory

A protection the US fought. But will it work?

By Richard Warnica, 28 Oct 2005, TheTyee.ca

copps

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

[Part one of a two part series]

They don't name airports after retired ministers of national heritage.

Unlike presidents and prime ministers, the culture dons don't meet up at lecture circuits or tour the world for hurricane relief.

But last week, in a phone call from Paris to Ottawa, two former culture ministers shared a quiet congratulations on a job well done.

On Thursday, at the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris, 148 countries voted for a new international agreement on cultural diversity: The Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

A project started by Canadians and championed by the French, the convention aims to opt cultural policies out of trade agreements; to define that books, magazines, songs and movies are not the same as lumber and t-shirts.

But what the convention means and how it will be interpreted aren't clear. Economists, activists, academics and politicians disagree on its purpose, its scope and even its relevance in the digital age.

Headlines around the world played the agreement to be everything from a victory against the McDonaldsization of culture, to an ambiguous and ill-thought instrument of protectionism.

In the lead up to the vote, the United States attacked the convention for emboldening repressive governments and limiting the free flow of ideas and information.

The magazine wars

Sheila Copps was Minister of Canadian Heritage for eight years from the late nineties until 2003. She was in her office in Ottawa last week when her old colleague in Paris called to congratulate her on the live birth of the convention she'd helped conceive seven years before.

Copps laughed about the vehement U.S. opposition. "It's ironic, because if it wasn't for the U.S., we never would have had the instrument in the first place," Copps told The Tyee.

In 1996, the U.S. challenged a Canadian tax on split runs -- American magazines with Canadian ads - at the World Trade Organization, launching what Copps called "the magazine wars."

And when the WTO forced Canada to scrap the tax, it caused a panic in the culture community. It was the first time a Canadian cultural policy was challenged at a trade forum and no one really knew what would be next.

The challenge, "had nothing to do with magazines at all," Copps said. "It was a way of testing our resolve." In other words, if in 1997 the WTO was scrapping a magazine tax, what would they be doing in 1998? How long before Canadian media ownership rules, Canadian content rules and even the CBC were challenged?

Vancouver publisher played role

For Copps, the answer was simple: if international rules were carving away her policy space, she'd need an international forum to get them back. The only problem was, the forum didn't exist. "We [culture ministers] were getting hammered at the WTO and we couldn't even talk about," Copps said.

So a year after the WTO shot down the Canadian tariff, Copps invited culture ministers from around the world to a meeting in Ottawa to discuss cultural policy. It was the first in a series of meetings of the International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP).

At the same time as the INCP was meeting in Ottawa, a group of artists and cultural groups got together to consult on the process. And in a tribute to the inexhaustible ability of international organizations to create confusing acronyms, they became the International Network on Cultural Diversity (INCD).

Between the INCP, the INCD and a group of private sector advisors called SAGIT, a series of drafts of what became the international convention were drawn up, starting in 1999.

But the convention didn't sail smoothly from Ottawa to Paris, according to Copps. "Culture is not very high on the pecking order," Copps said. And much of the lobbying that eventually convinced 148 governments to sign on was done, not by bureaucrats and politicians, but by artists and their bosses.

"The INCD was instrumental in promoting the initiative," Copps said. Private citizens like Vancouver's Scott McIntyre of book publisher Douglas and McIntyre, and Peter Grant, a communications lawyer and former SAGIT member, lobbied colleagues and governments around the world to support the convention.

But the civic sector wasn't exactly a unified force. Sasha Costanza-Chock is a spokesman for the Media Trade Monitor, a website set up by the INCD and another communications NGO that monitored the process. A PhD student at California's Annenberg School of Journalism, Costanza-Chock has been involved for years in a fight against media deregulation in the United States.

In the end neither side got everything they were looking for. On the Trade Monitor website, Costanza-Chock wrote that the NGOs, "successfully lobbied for the elimination of language that would have supported the current extremist copyright regime, but failed to insert references to the importance of the public domain, fair use, and the creative commons."

But the real battle for the convention was with the United States.

U.S. opposition

By the end of the convention process, the most newsworthy part of the whole deal for much of the world was American isolation. Only Israel joined the United States in voting against the convention, while four other countries abstained.

But, as by far the world's top exporter of movies and music, the U.S. has a good reason to be afraid of anything that threatens its markets. In 2000 alone, Hollywood exports brought in nearly US$9 billion, according to a Yale University study.

American opposition was hamstrung, though, because they weren't members, first of the INCP, where the convention started, and later of UNESCO where it ended up. (The US quit UNESCO in 1984, but rejoined in 2003, in time for the later stages of the convention debate)

Treaty with heft?

What's ironic about the US opposition is that, according to a lot of people, the treaty won't really have that much impact. "All these governments are trumpeting this as a huge success, but it's not going to be a bulwark against Hollywood," said Costanza-Chock.

Costanza-Chock called the level of US opposition "bizarre" in an interview with The Tyee, saying that the Americans already stripped the treaty of its most effective clauses.

For one, the convention's final language left its relationship to other trade agreements very ambiguous. Article 20 says both that it should not be subordinate, "to any other treaty," and that it won't modify "rights and obligations of parties under any other treaty." In other words, the treaty is both equal to all other international agreements, but doesn't alter them.

Also, the treaty doesn't really have an effective way of solving disputes, according to Christopher Maule, an economist at Carleton University who has followed trade and culture for decades. "There's no independent body that people have to adhere to," Maule said. "That's not an agreement with any teeth in it."

While the treaty does have a procedure for solving disputes, it doesn't punish anyone for ignoring those procedures. If you break a WTO commitment, you can be fined, but if you don't live up to your obligations under this convention, the worst that could happen would be a global finger-wagging.

But Michael Byers, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia doesn't see that as a problem. Both in an interview with The Tyee and in a Globe and Mail editorial published last week, Byers argued that the convention was never meant to have a concrete way of settling disputes.

If the framers of the agreement had pushed too hard for a dispute resolution mechanism, Byers said, the treaty would have died years ago. It was, he argued, brilliant strategy to keep a mechanism out.

Besides, he said, the treaty was all about helping countries keep culture out of GATS, the General Agreement on Trade in Services.

Costanza-Chock agrees. "The one thing the convention is good for is to let all the culture groups take the text of the thing and say 'we signed this, you can't commit our audio visual services under GATS."

Battle over 'audio visual services'

International trade is split between two mammoth, Byzantine agreements, one governing goods, the other services. The big difference between the two is that, for goods, everything is considered to be on the table, unless a country explicitly opts it out.

Services works the opposite way. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is as a bottom up agreement; until you agree to include a service sector in an agreement with another country, you can regulate it any which way you please.

That's huge, because audio visuals, like television, movies, music and radio are all considered services in trade law. And the world's number one exporter of audio visual services is the United States. "It's trying to influence what people do with the U.S. in bilateral agreements," Maule said.

With the convention in hand, governments may find it easier keep their audio-visuals off the table in the next round of WTO negotiations. And the more countries that do that, the easier it is for France to justify its domestic film quota and Canada its Canadian content rules.

Can quotas still work?

But even if the convention is successful in protecting movie and television quotas, there is no guarantee they can still work in the multimedia age, according to Maule. "You can't have effective quotas if you can just download a movie on the Internet," Maule said.

The same goes for music. While the government can still regulate how much Avril Lavigne or Celine Dion conventional radio stations have to play, they'll have a much harder job doing the same for satellite radio.

The CRTC imposed strict Canadian content rules for three satellite radio providers approved in June. But anyone with an American friend who doesn't mind lending an address can still subscribe to the American only channels.

And in the iPod age, radio, in any format, may not be as influential. Neil Hrab is a former editorial writer at the National Post and a research fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. He wrote an article critical of the convention for Tech Central Station, a free market meets technology news site.

"Thanks to the spread of personal electronic devices and the rise of sites where you can download content from the Internet, will this 'right' to regulate mean anything?" Hrab asked in the article. "If you are serious about protecting your national identity, how many busybodies are you going to need to hire to impose restrictions on what… young people can play on their iPods and personal DVD players?"

Fight's not over yet

Six years gone from the first draft of the cultural convention and a week after 148 countries signed on to it, the battle still isn't over. Before it becomes international law, 30 countries have to ratify the convention, a process that could take anywhere from months to years.

And whether or not it works to keep audio-visuals out of the next round of WTO talks remains to be seen.

But for Sheila Copps, last week's vote was reason enough to celebrate. "This was a fight I personally carried for years," Copps said. And for a politician who spent her career fighting, this one was close enough to a win.

Next week: Part 2: How well does Canada promote media diversity within its borders?

Richard Warnica is a regular contributor to The Tyee. [Tyee]

Richard Warnica is a senior editor at The Tyee.

27 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Chris H

    6 years ago

    Comments on "Cultural Diversity: Canada's UN Victory"

    The sad thing is that we have very little choice as it stands now. Pick up a dialy, listen to the news on TV, or listen to talk radio, and there is a very good chance that they are all owned by the same company with its owned biased viewpoint. We shouldn't be so proud of ourselves over our "cultural diversity."

  • gaulois

    6 years ago

    I can certainly tell you that the cultural "diversity" of our so called protected minorities (i.e. the First Nations and francophones outside of Quebec)is mainly determined by Ottawa bureaucrats and its political correctness. I am somewhat leary about this posturing against American cultural domination when we do the same thing internally to our own People. Do as I say, not as I do.

  • Te Aro Arahina

    6 years ago

    A paper victory. In a time when news and information is increasingly acquired through blogs and online sources.

  • Ron Erwin

    6 years ago

    In China, the internet is censored. You cannot access any site that states the word " democracy ".
    In Canada we are not much better. We have the CRTC supported by our Heritage cabinet minister who are attempting to censor what we have access to.
    How in the world, with satellite radio, internet, TV over telephones and the hundreds of web sites and other sources for information, can we tolerate this anymore ?

  • gaulois

    6 years ago

    I often think we need to cut the funding of Heritage Canada. Most of the work that they do is to repress the NGO new media sector that challenges the state monopoly on public media. This is most noticeable amongst so called protected minorities. The majority should take interest to what is happening to the "canary" in the coal mine because the majority is next to get that treatment.

  • dorothy

    6 years ago

    this treaty is just a lazy *ss solution to education of the youth in actual critical thinking. If free market forces meet with actual powers of discernemnt, diversity takes care of itself. The problem is, that the other ramifications of having a critically thinking populace don't bear thinking of:

    If the peasant knew the laws of the land, and the stallion knew his strength, it would take the devil to be a knight. (Sigrid Unset)

    Therefore, we stay dumbed down, and get the state-ordained protection against hollywodd's pap. To anyone interested: CBUFT still has quality stuff after midnight, although you must be willing to brave bad french subtitles to Russian, Indian and Chinese movies. It's woth it.

  • burner

    6 years ago

    copps should be remembered for her strength of character.
    remember she told canada she would quit politics if the liberals did not axe the gst.

    she comvieniently forgot that, when it was announced they were keeping the gst.

    after even her mom said she should quit, she conspired with chretien and the liberal royalty to quit, but not quit.

    she ran in the by-election to replace herself.
    in the town her dad owned.

    she was a member of the lying liberal caucus, and it is hard to imagine that she knew nothing of adscam.

    her word cannot be trusted, so anything she said is totally useless, without an interpretation of the spin.

    why do we keep these ego trippers in the public spotlight?

  • skeptikool

    6 years ago

    We cannot overlook the role of media in designing our culture. This, made easier by a largely-compliant public.

    A prime example occurs today:

    After editorializing on behalf of the police, following the shooting death of a teen passenger riding in a stolen vehicle, the editors ask, "What do think?" regarding the victim's parents asking that the police cover the $7,000 cost of their son's funeral.

    Do we just roll over and accept the police and media reports following such tragedies? The five letters responding to that editorial would make me believe so. From Where was the family? to An absurd request, all letters in varying degrees supported the editorial. Perhaps there are more letters to come with other views.

    For many, who express such superiority over Americans, there seems a terribly casual attitude toward the unnecessary killing of a 16-year-old boy. Could this be the media changing our culture?

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Yes the poor lad. Shot in a stolen vehicle. I wonder how much sympathy you'd get from the families of loved ones who were killed by these habitual thiefs driving stolen cars? Who paid for those funerals? Forgiveness in is pretty short supply out there right now. What about the elderly gentleman killed by a walking drunk, who doesn't even know what happened? Unless you are a victim yourself you don't give a rats ass! Victims are a very small minority but ask any of them if they think life is fair. It isn't, and if you don't look out for your own personal safety who is? Funny thing when you start to take responsibility for your own actions... you start to respect others as well.

    Excuse me Colin, if I mention Bowling for Columbine again, but a perfect example is the parent who lost a child in that massacre. What was he doing before he lost his son? What are any of us doing? Was it Chomsky who said it's the dumbing down of society? Mission accomplished.

  • skeptikool

    6 years ago

    clubofrome,

    I have bumped into others, and been bumped into, even though being stone-cold sober.

    The story makes good copy to be exploited but collisions usually involve two or more.

    Your concerns regarding deaths involving stolen vehicles are noted. Some one person was recently reported to have stolen over 1,000 vehicles. With today's forensic science, one has to wonder who was sitting on their hands to allow these thefts to occur.

  • dfp

    6 years ago

    gaulois,

    What is "the NGO new media sector that challenges the state monopoly on public media"?

    DCH plays a key role in supporting and developing Canadian culture.

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Hello skeptikool,
    The elderly gentleman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. As the police have reported there was no criminal intent. This is a freak accident. As it is in a high speed chase when you look at the frequency. Your reaction will be much the same though. You'd like to be able to blame someone. A judge who sent the youth back home after his 47th theft of a vehicle. The institution that didn't help the man before he resorted to consumming copier fluid as his drug of choice. Or one step further, the arrows point to the way we choose to govern ourselves. The government then chose to close the shelters and send the mentally challenged back on the street. But... Bravo to the rich and wealthy! Our hero's and mentors to be looked up to, worshiped and elected to keep the ground of opportunity fertile. Give Donald Trump a TV show, yet Noam Chomsky still lives in relative obscurity comparitively. As Ed reminds us daily in his remarks, when will you people wake up?

  • gaulois

    6 years ago

    from dfp: "What is "the NGO new media sector that challenges the state monopoly on public media"?"

    These would be non government organisations like ghostchild.com, lecanardreincarne.freesoul.ca that finance themselves on their own and engage people to discuss their own issues. I can ensure you that Heritage Canada loaded with $ has done everything it can to decimate the fragile NGO sector that raises the bar to them. Bureaucrats simply do not like competition and People that organize themselves on the Net. Well funded governement organisation culture.ca that is supposed to act as a portal to canadian cultural groups active on the Net will only be a portal to groups that have gained funding from the federal, thus under a gag IMHO. They refused to promote my NGO new media within the Francophone Hors Québec (FHQ) community.

    These people should really not worry about political correctness of the People.

    As a result of this, you will see very few FHQs (if any) blogging on the Net or active in Internet forums. I can ensure you that I am a whole lot more sympathetical to sovereignists in Quebec now after I have experienced what Heritage Canada has done to us.

  • russellmcormond

    6 years ago

    It has been frustrating to watch this story. This is the same series of cultural ministers from Copps to Frulla that are pushing the primarily US-authored 1996 WIPO treaties. These treaties were authored in 1995 by the USPTO (Search for "Lehman report") with the intention to protect the current and proposed business models of the US exporting industries for culture and other 'intangibles' (software, etc). It is entirely unlikely that the UNESCO treaty will even partly counter the 1996 WIPO treaties which Copps and Frulla have been pushing. This is less than a hollow win for "Canadian culture" -- it is a media stunt to distract from the ill-conceived policy that we now see in Bill C-60.

    For more information please see http://digital-copyright.ca -- Please also sign our petition.

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    6 years ago

    I think most of the bloggers have nailed this right on the money.

    The first two blogs from Chris H and gaulois particularly. Although U.S. influence is pretty obvious, and their objectives self-interested (but what countries are not?), I cannot for a moment accept that Canadian content particularly as this concerns our media should criticize anyone.

    The U.S. spends hundreds of millions of dollars on media influence of elections, but generally it is equally corrupt. In Canada the bias is truly disgraceful. Our politicians act so piously on the account of Canadian content, but I believe it is only their view of Canadian content.

    The Aspers (CanWest) have made every possible attempt to take away from CBC influence, and although I do not agree with everything on CBC, at least (intellectually) I can understand it.

    The remaining major news is pretty embarassing, and this is well known across the world as far as I can tell.

    Once, again Canada needs to be more introspective and less 'cute' about our national identity. We are a maturing democracy and we should begin to act accordingly rather than continueing to be 'pretenders in perpetuity'.

    I can't wait for the follow up article.

  • Percy

    6 years ago

    Protecting our own culture is more than canned state media. How about promoting Canadian history?

  • BC Mary

    6 years ago

    And here's what I think, Robbins. I think you must decide whether you're a pollster or a manipulator.

    You can't pose as a neutral, fact-finding service while you're rushing into print with your personal point of view.

    And I believe that to be accurate 19 times out of 20, within 3 percentage points. Give or take. On a frosty Friday in the forenoon. Anywhere.

  • skeptikool

    6 years ago

    clubofrome,

    Quote:
    Yes the poor lad. Shot in a stolen vehicle. I wonder how much sympathy you'd get from the families of loved ones who were killed by these habitual thiefs driving stolen cars? Who paid for those funerals?

    A late answer:

    Where the facts are proven, ICBC. (Read, all who have vehicles insured by ICBC)And still extremely unsatisfactory for the relatives and friends.

    Back to culture. Just what is Canadian culture?

    Please don't tell me...hockey.

    Perhaps we have become so mixed that it is difficult to have a defining culture emerge. Culturally, I believe Quebec has much more going for it - perhaps, also, some of the aboriginal groups.

    As for much of the rest of Canada, when you're on the couch in front of the box, splitting a pizza and six-pack, whooping it up to some violent display called sport, who gives a damn about culture? That might just be it.

  • BC Mary

    6 years ago

    Quote:
    commentor: ROBBINS Sce Research posted:

    Although U.S. influence is pretty obvious, and their objectives self-interested (but what countries are not?), I cannot for a moment accept that Canadian content particularly as this concerns our media should criticize anyone.

    What in blue blazes does that sentence mean?

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    6 years ago

    November 3, 2005

    PART "A" for The Tyee (excuse the intrusion bloggers) This poll was published about six hours prior to Ipsos poll (view at Canada.com)
    -in my opinion some numbers are quite similar, conclusions differ ie Harper's lower numbers trade off Liberals lower numbers- Glen

    ROBBINS Sce Research (1998)
    robbinssceresearch.com

    Vancouver B.C./Toronto Ontario/Montreal Quebec

    For immediate Release

    Highlights (post Gomery Report)

    ·Majority of Canadians agree with Gomery findings
    ·Canadians exonerate Paul Martin; blame Jean Chretien and Liberal Party.
    ·Canadians believe Paul Martin Liberals equal to the task of cleaning up corruption as other federal parties
    ·Canadians support another Liberal minority government, but who has the balance of power?

    Question #1-Do you agree with the Gomery Report?

    (a) Strongly Agree- 19%
    (b) Agree- 40%
    (c) Disagree-15%
    (d) Strongly Disagree-22%
    (e) Unsure-03%

    Question #2-Do you believe in Ministerial responsibility?

    (a) Jean Chretien is 100% at fault-26%
    (b) Paul Martin is 100% at fault-11%
    (c) Jean Chretien should be exonerated-06%
    (d) Paul Martin should be exonerated-34%
    (e) Both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are 100% at fault-21%
    (f) Both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin should be exonerated-02%

    Question #3- Do you think a new government can clean up the culture of entitlement and corruption?

    (a) Stephen Harper and the Conservatives-28.5%
    (b) Jack Layton and the NDP-17%
    (c) Paul Martin and the Liberals-34.5%
    (d) Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc-14%
    (e) Other/Undecided-6.5%

    Question #4-If there were an election today would you vote?

    (a) Stephen Harper and the Conservatives-27.5%
    (b) Paul Martin and Liberals-33.5%
    (c) Jack Layton and NDP-18%
    (d) Gilles Duceppe and Bloc Quebecois-14%
    (e) Other/Undecided-07%

    Question #5-Based on your voting patterns what outcome would you prefer after the next general federal election?

    (a) Liberal Majority-04%
    (b) Liberal Minority-29%
    (c) Conservative Minority-20%
    (d) Conservative Majority-18%
    (e) Lib/NDP/Bloc coalition-02%
    (f) Liberal/NDP coalition-20%
    (g) Conservative/Bloc-1.5%
    (g) Undecided-05%

    Commentary- A majority of respondents agree with the recent findings of the Gomery Report. A majority of Canadians in one fashion or another believe that either former Prime Minister Jean Chretien or Prime Minister Paul Martin are 100% at fault with two-thirds of those respondents blaming Jean Chretien.

    Despite the findings of fault by Justice Gomery and the determination of fault by Canadians Paul Martin’s federal Liberals are still able to hold their own in terms of who can clean up a culture of entitlement and corruption. Many respondents commented that Brian Mulroney was no better than Paul Martin, while others don’t think the NDP is ‘tough enough’ to get the job done.

    Respondents in this poll ‘post Gomery’ suggest another Paul Martin Liberal government is likely with the balance of power once again in question.

    The most interesting aspect about the initial Gomery Report in this poll is that at least for the time being, it clears the air with Canadians about how they see the political dynamic in Ottawa. The patterns emerging from this poll suggest Canadians have now taken an initial position after the Gomery report. A type of ‘fresh’ political environment exists insofar as battle lines are concerned. Prior to this during the Gomery inquiry respondent preference was volatile and afterward settled into a sort of ‘unresolved complacency’. As a number of Ottawa journalists have suggested, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien is the bad guy, Prime Minister Paul Martin the good guy, with the federal Liberal name badly bruised.

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    6 years ago

    November 3, 2005

    ROBBINS on Gomery

    PART "B" The Tyee
    Insight (ROBBINS Report)- The Liberal Party is hanging on by the skin of Paul Martin. The Vatican may find it distasteful but federal Liberal caucus members should be doing a significant amount of genuflecting to their ‘boss’ over the coming weeks. The Conservative Party has not lost any ground, but none has been truly gained either. Their position on social issues, which plays well in the west, is not as popular in Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes. In addition, the Liberals maintain the advantage of two well placed political firewalls with Ministers Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach protecting the Liberal ‘right flank’ in the east, and former B.C. Premier Ujjal Dosanjh protecting the Liberals ‘left flank’ in the west. The former serve as constant reminders of where Progressive Conservatives ‘belong’, and the latter (as Canadian federal Health Minister) always ready to take attention away from Jack Layton on Canada’s number one social issue, health care.

    A random sample of 1,044 Canadians between November 1st and 3rd, 2005. This survey has a margin of error of 2.15%, 19 times out of 20 @99% competency. A company doing business in the United States of America and Canada paid for this survey.

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    6 years ago

    Mary/Alan-it means what it says and I would appreciate it if 'YOU' think about this for a moment please. Look at your own deficits for a moment (person-politician-country), get some understanding of who or what you are, and after that exercise has been reasonably undertaken, than consider the deficiencies in another environment (culture country) etc.

    There are some more simple interpretations that have been offered through the ages, all standing the test of time.

    Canada cannot continue to always use the United States and what they do as an alibi for what we don't do. Our media culture is flawed and asymmetrical. For balance in politics and media you need to think of weight and counter weight. Once we have the discussion about are own problems within the media culture and address where we are going there, than we can fly around the world and talk bureaucrat to bureaucrat about what may or may not work with respect to trade agreements.

    I don't feel what you are saying is critiqueing but more just being a type of railbird. However I will attempt to write more clearly in any event.

  • BC Mary

    6 years ago

    How in heaven's name could a Robbins poll conclude that Paul Martin, mentor to Basi & Virk, is The Good Guy?

  • BC Mary

    6 years ago

    ... and hooeeee, don't I enjoy being lectured on my erroneous thoughts by somebody who's supposed to be merely counting up how many people think this or that, about who and what (19 times out of 20)?

    Am I supposed to feel bad or something, about having an opposing view? Are we expected to please you, Robbins, by following your advice on the issues? Not bloody likely. Hurry it up, Robbins. Go count something, somewhere else.

  • BC Mary

    6 years ago

    Looking more closely at Robbins SCE Research, of a quiet Sunday morning, I'm impressed. From what I can see, RSR consists of Glen P. Robbins, at his Coquitlam kitchen table with one telephone, who only last year made a short-lived run for the leadership of the B.C. Reform Party.

    On 18 July 05, Glen wrote a stinging rebuke [Ref. the Conservative blog-site ProudtobeCanadian.ca] against the poll results of Allan Gregg's Strategic Counsel which published pre-election "misinterpreted propaganda ... not substantiated through data."

    I happen to agree with Glen's statement itself; but the larger issue is whether pollsters ever should have as much clout as they do. Are they ever challenged? And are they all Conservatives, like Gregg and Robbins?

    What especially impressed me, however, was Glen P. Robbins' polling report prior to the City of Port Moody's vote on Skytrain. Robbins was able to discover that "the overwhelming majority" of voters in the City of Port Moody wanted the Skytrain route to be exactly where the Port Moody Council wanted it to be.

    What power, to place in the hands of one person who, 19 times out of 20, can make it seem almost official that "Everybody says ..."

    Both these poll results were publicly announced shortly before their respective elections. They probably influenced the electoral results. Going a step farther, Glen as Pollster is actively admonishing two of us (above) for our ideas.

    Is this really OK with us?

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    6 years ago

    BC Mary-we are working progressively in the area of telephony including internet long distance which is growing technology.

    I never work at my kitchen table. I have an office in my home where I can connect with all caller centres and independent callers. We maintain 'circulating auditors' who are able to go in behind 'general callers' in specific telephone prefixes to overlap polling segments of 10, 20, 50, 100 respondents. Each respondent is labelled like a grizzly bear in the woods and designated to gender as well.

    The questions are specifically designed to test the veracity of one question or another. Most questions are framed from news stories prior to the poll, sometimes using paraphrasing of reporting, or a push from us to 'test the hypothesis'. We are not just looking for the primae facie evidence we are looking for the undercurrent, we have some interesting ones coming up in our poll of the Vancouver civic election.

    Alan Gregg has been around a lot longer than I have, and I am unsure how much 'clout' I have, but I don't operate with that in mind. I am just as interested say, in how sophisticated the communication between politicos might be in the suburbs like Coquitlam and Vancouver.

    In a large scale like the United States you will find the distilled opinion of the public is much tighter to the media and the policies.
    Everything about the media down there in terms of its connection to the people is very tight, except in some areas where the people seem to be lost. Canada on the other hand has many more passive opinions, but with better experienced callers you can get a plethora of really good information measured against the questions, often with outcomes that you would never expect. Other times it is more predictable.

    We began with offices in South Burnaby and than spent three years over by Christy Clark's office, and now we use a number of call centres all over North American. IN BC we have a number of people who will call for us, many have called for years and are very good at this. Our list of visitors from all over the world (to our website) is extensive, and looks like a list of the U.N.

    I simply thought your writing was getting a little bitchy and hysterical, and that you were personalizing things with me. The reason I blog is because we are moving in unconventional ways, and for me, this permits me as the person in charge to test some of my own thoughts (without a net) against those of people who commit to being perhaps more interested in politics than others we call for general opinion who help to develop the 'body politic'.

  • BC Mary

    6 years ago

    That's better. Smoked you out, just a bit, eh? Am not convinced that you "in your area of telephony" provide such a benign, unbiased, and utterly selfless service to the voting public. Au contraire.

    And it's always the voting public, isn't it. You take on political commissions, you're paid to do them, and you're certainly aware of the results your employers are hoping for ... so, voila! will you disappoint them? Not likely. You'll find just the right "undercurrent".

    You shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an election, IMHO. I did not like the way you sidled into Tyee discussions trying to push the topics one way or another ... never admitting your own deeply "Reform" bias ... all the while posting your bit of free advertising. Do you see anybody else putting up their business shingles on Tyee, trawling for business?

    BTW, do you ever try to denounce males as "hysterical" ... ?

    That's it for me. Game over.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.