Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
RSR ROBBINS Research - Canada Politics February 2, 2007
  Feb 02, 2007

Methodology-This is a random sampling poll of 575 “homeowners” throughout the GVRD. ROBBINS depicts this poll as possessing a margin of error of 4.5% generally (where the specificity of the target calls might have otherwise called for a lower margin of error). It is our best impression that this poll if conducted 20 times would produce the same result 19 times within that framework of error margin. The confidence/competence level if one accepts the nature and content of the questions as OBVIOUSLY not neutral and relative to the overall impression @ 95% simply because there are some respondents who might have answered a particular way because they believe we wanted that answer. Where this is the case, we believe it is a nominal factor based on the underlying premise from notes of these interviews that most of the respondents do not know very much about Kyoto in the first place other than name recognition. This poll was sponsored by Glen P. Robbins (15%), Glen P. Robbins and Associates (50%) and Jim Van Rassel (35%).
{#of respondents who refused to answer poll-32 %-( based on gross-up of respondents plus those refused); (an additional 19% of respondents refused to provide gross household income in 000’s) (while an additional 14% would not provide age). (54% of respondents would indicate whether they had a mortgage or did not have a mortgage) Accordingly only 64% of total respondents provided information on household income and age} (Margin of error does not factor either age or household income, as questions are not posted).

Question #1
Which federal political leader is, in your opinion, the better leader?
Stephane Dion    45 %
Stephen Harper    55 %
Neither    23 %
Undecided    08 %
Question #2
Who would you prefer for your Prime Minister?
Stephen Harper    54 %
Stephane Dion    46 %
Neither    25 %
Undecided    12 %
Question #3
The European Union wanted to adopt a Constitution but was not successful. They are now looking at a European Treaty instead of a Constitution. The Kyoto Environmental protocol promoted by the European Union is essentially a Treaty. The Europeans are thus promoting an environmental Treaty without establishing a political Treaty for their union. The European Union has set a standard under Kyoto for 8% emission reduction for its own member states but has set a different standard for countries like Canada along the lines of 15% emission reduction. The world two largest polluters China and the United States have not agreed to take part in the Kyoto protocol. The Kyoto protocol establishes a system of debits and credits based on how well a country performs environmentally under the protocol. Is this varied standard for emissions reductions of 8% for the EU and 15% for Canada fair to Canada in your opinion?
Yes    22 %
No    78 %
Undecided    04 %
Question #4
Critics of the Kyoto protocol cite countries that formed the previous Soviet Union as an example of why the Kyoto protocol will not work. Under the protocol those countries who like Russia have not developed successful commercial economies, and who are ‘nearly broke’, and as a consequence have shut down energy plants, will receive monies from countries like Canada who have superior economies. Do you agree with critics of Kyoto who say that countries with poor market economies will benefit from countries with good economies, with the true focus of the environment being lost in the translation?
Yes    67 %
No    33 %
Unsure/Undecided    17 %
Question #5
In your opinion, since Kyoto is an International protocol using a system of debits and credits to, in essence, create equalization among member nation states relative to assessing use (or mis-use) of the global environment, would it not make more sense for Canada to FIRST establish its own intra federation protocol or treaty as this relates to the various provinces in Canada operating under Confederation (including British Columbia) under our own sovereign federal provincial equalization program? In other words would you support a Kyoto type system designed for Canada first? *this question (#5) was similar to the one which ROBBINS prepared for the Chamber of Commerce (Executive Inn) and was provided to Liberal leader Stephane Dion for Question and Answer on January 25, 2007, when the Opposition leader left the stage and went to his room without answering any questions. See ROBBINS press release under BC polls.
Yes    72 %
No    28 %
Undecided    09 %
Question #6
Which of the following federal political parties are you supporting at this time? (Adjusted upward and downward for rounding-choices rotated)
Liberal party    32 %
Conservative party    40 %
New Democratic party    23 %
Green party    02 %
None    02 %
Don't Know/Undecided    07 %
Commentary
This is a poll of 575 ‘Homeowners’ in the Greater Vancouver region including West and North Vancouver, Vancouver city proper, Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody (including Anmore and Belcarra), Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, White Rock and Langley.
The average household income is just under $72,000 (Gross) and average age of respondent is 47 (mean and median). (Some respondents indicated that they do not work).
Prime Minister Harper is generally equal to or better then federal Liberal and Opposition leader Stephane Dion in all regions of the lower mainland as far east as Langley, at least as far as leadership is concerned. People who don’t intend to vote for Stephen Harper accept his leadership skill, they just don’t support him or in the alternative his political party. This nuance is one which might offer a hint that the Prime Minister is heading for a majority government.
Stephane Dion is preferred over Mr. Harper for Prime Minister in West and North Vancouver and Vancouver city. Mr. Dion fairs slightly better in West and North Vancouver then in Vancouver city proper, particularly after factoring “Neither”. Nearly 60% of women in North and West Vancouver and Vancouver city proper area of the GVRD prefer Mr. Dion to Stephen Harper. However of those respondents who make a choice (54%) of men in Vancouver city proper prefer Stephen Harper. (57%) of men in Burnaby and (58%) of men in the Tri-City region prefer Harper to Dion.
In Surrey and Langley just under two thirds of male respondents support the current Prime Minister for “Prime Minister” with an even higher number indicating he is the “better” leader. Mr. Dion is preferred for Prime Minister (but not leader) by women in Burnaby, (barely) Tri-City area, but not in Surrey or Richmond.
Based on the information provided about the Kyoto protocol in Q#3 homeowners in this fertile BC political ground are not entrenched by any stretch of the imagination in the quasi institution, and could be convinced to abandon support. Question #3 the way it is asked, (which we believe is a fair depiction of the facts), overwhelmingly rejects Kyoto as unfair to Canada.
It does not take too much encouragement for respondents to fall away from support for Kyoto. We now believe that much of the alleged support for Kyoto is soft or at least can be fairly easily deconstructed as invalid as a regime design which would benefit other nations first and Canada last. It supports our hypothesis that many people who are supporting Kyoto are doing so emotionally without an intelligent rationale for supporting it.
The European Union’s institutions are in development mode, and there is not even a Treaty in place to support the Union, let alone a bona fide infrastructure to deal with the environment. Indeed both France and the Netherlands have been the most critical of Constitutional integration and favour the Treaty format. Canada should embark on its own intra provincial model for environmental reforms and WAIT for the EU to sort out its own institutional and integral shortcomings before getting into the business of rectifying the globe through what is arguably a flawed or at least inconsistent global regime.
Kyoto appears to be a regime more for dealing with fragile nation economies which somewhat cynically supports economic failure and not success. There is no obvious bridge through Kyoto from the problem of Global Warming to the solution to it. Any transition for more viable nation economies from classic interpretations of economic development and success to a more concerted understanding of social cost accounting must first be realized within the nation, so that the citizens have an understanding of what is required before the bigger job of integration with the rest of the world can be properly realized. Success on this very important matter will be obtained through individual acceptance and initiative guided by a very compelling exhortation through government programs, media communication, education in schools (children in schools everywhere are watching Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”).
Most Conservative supporters and many Liberal and New Democratic supporters agree with our proposal in Question #5 which essentially sets out that Canada should develop its own model for contribution to the solution for Global Warming. Canada’s part in the Global Warming problem is small, and a national strategy and subsequent model for solutions would go a long way to helping Canada and other nations deal with the two largest world polluters, namely China and the United States. NDP leader Jack Layton needs to seriously investigate this reality lest he lose every non urban seat he has to the Conservatives. It is Liberal supporters who seem more inclined to follow name labels and dreams rather then the reality of the situation. If a country cannot properly secure a regime which benefits itself with no real knowledge or historical precedent to guide it, how will this possibly be successful cross border and globally when the world is in an almost surreal state on virtually every other strategic account? As one respondent put it “how can people focus on the environment if they are struggling to survive themselves day to day…the environment and Global Warming are issues which are being made luxuries for the wealthy who have the time and money to think about it. It is not the wealthy who will solve the problem” (unless you mean the big oil companies).
The United States gave its signature to Kyoto in 2002 but never ratified. Many insiders suggest that the U.S. initially gave its signature hoping it would induce France and Germany as well as other European allies to get on board the anti-terrorism program and later as a negotiating piece for U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. China whose path to increased economic superiority is debilitated somewhat by its difficult environmental record is more reluctant to get on with Kyoto, and it is unlikely that either of these major powers will ever do so.
Accordingly, if this is the case Kyoto can not ever become a viable global regime for a solution to Global warming. For Canada to participate in Kyoto with any vigour leaves us vulnerable to the political vagaries of more socialist European states including the United Kingdom when none of these countries do significant business with our country. Canada would be much better off constructing its own environmental regime, which can mirror Kyoto in some respects but be better supported by. This model can serve for each of the two countries Canada would like to conduct business with, China and the U.S. Better to let the fledging sovereign entity of the EU to work out its integration issues, rather then to have Canada begin to subsidize the integration of nations like former East Germany and the Baltic States (and possibly Turkey) who have slowed the progress of the development of the EU and will surely damage Canada’s economy if we continue down this somewhat vacuous road.

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2017