It seems that the start of the Harper Government's $16.5 million advertising campaign to push the US to turn to Canadian energy, specifically by supporting the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands oil production, isn't quite having the impact that the Conservatives were hoping for.

Lee-Anne Goodman writes for the Canadian Press, that "efforts by the Conservative government to sell Americans on the virtues of Canadian natural resources failed to impress those south of the border, according to a new report, and even left them puzzled over assertions that Canada is America's best friend."

The $58,000 government commissioned Harris-Decima report found that the advertising push by Natural Resources Canada left focus groups in Washington D.C. "befuddled" by the campaign's tagline, "America's best friend is America's best energy solution."

The taxpayer-funded report posted Wednesday on Library and Archives Canada found few would assume that the tagline was referring to Canada, "despite certainly considering Canada to be a good friend," further adding "some indicated that claiming you are one's best friend comes across as something one does when one is about to ask for a huge favour."

The report also observed that the focus groups were displeased with the tone of the ads, saying that the word "solution" suggested that "America had a problem that needed solving." Similarly, the report noted that "virtually all objected to the reference to Canada's ban on dirty coal as it seemed to imply that Canada is doing more than the US."

Respondents also indicated that the use of the phrase "America faces a choice" was "somewhat pushy," and didn't like the country being referred to as "America" instead of the US or the United States.

The US advertising campaign includes a website geared towards US viewers, as well as ads and promotions in influential publications that "shine a job-friendly and environmentally sensitive light on a cross-section of Canadian resource industries," reports the Canadian Press.

The campaign is part of the Harper government's plan to gain access to foreign markets for Canadian oil. The Keystone XL pipeline project would make large quantities of tar sands oil available to refineries on the US Gulf Coast. President Obama is set to make a decision on the TransCanada pipeline early next year.

The Canadian Press reports that the six focus groups in Washington D.C. told Harris-Decima researchers that "the ads, launched in the spring during the heat of the Keystone battle, could be "greatly improved" and lacked a cohesive and direct message to the American public."

Harris-Decima interviewed people in three rounds over March and April, including members of the general public and political news aficionados called "opinion elites."

"The advertising as it stands faces some challenges in conveying a consistently heard and appreciated message and could be greatly improved with some specific adjustments to tone and content," the report stated.

Respondents felt that the ads should be "less subtle" about advocating in favour of Keystone XL. The report stated that "opinion elites were fairly uniform in stating a preference for seeing mention of 'pipeline' in the copy and perhaps the imagery" based on the assumption that "the ads related to a Canadian pipeline."

"The purpose of the pre-testing was to ensure that the ads were effective. The final ads were amended based on the constructive feedback we received," said Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

In an email, Oliver defended the campaign, saying that it provided "specific facts about measures taken by Canada to protect the environment, and other information on responsible resource development."  

Oliver also pointed out the positive feedback from the report, which did say that "Canada is held in fairly high regard, even if it is not often considered, and that an element of that high regard relates to Canada being a competent and trustworthy neighbour/partner both in terms of industrial partnerships and acting responsibly."

The report also found that opinion elites generally felt that Canada is "more environmentally responsible" than "other oil producing countries."

But there was also more criticism stemming from confusion about the campaign's intended audience and use of "jargon" like GHG for greenhouse gases, which one focus group complained about.

Others wanted to know how exactly the Keystone XL would benefit Americans, "whether it be from increased oil imports from Canada or lower gas prices," said the report.

The government hired Leger Marketing in summer 2012 to "fine-tune" the ad campaign, reports the Canadian Press.

A similar study conducted in Canada showed that the ad campaign failed to impress Canadians in twelve focus groups across six cities. The ads were found to be lacking in "factual information" and failing to deliver "a coherent message."  After "significant modifications," a second round of focus-group testing results reportedly proved more positive.

It's uncertain whether the budget for repeated focus-group testing also comes from the $16.5 million set aside for this ad campaign. Recently Natural Resources Canada announced an additional $24-million for an international tar sands advertising campaign, designed to counter "intense and sustained public relations campaigns" against the resource.

Image Credit: Rocco Rossi / Wikimedia Commons

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The New Library and Archives Canada Code of Conduct: Values and Ethics has prompted accusations of muzzling from librarians and archivists.

The 23-page document, which was leaked to Postmedia, details strict new guidelines for employees of Library and Archives Canada (LAC). It states that public servants have a "duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada and its elected officials" which extends beyond the workplace to personal activities.

Although this "duty of loyalty" has always been a part of the federal government’s staffing policy, the new code takes a much harder stance on certain personal activities that have long been a part of the archivist’s job.

It labels personal activities such as teaching, conferences and public meetings “high risk,” and lays out six conditions that an outside invitation must meet for an employee to accept:

• The subject matter of the activity is not related to the mandate or activities of LAC;
• The employee is not presented as speaking for or being an expert of LAC or the Government of Canada;
• The third party is not a potential or current supplier to/collaborator with LAC;
• The third party does not lobby or advocate with LAC;
• The third party does not receive grants, contributions or other types of funding or payments from LAC;
• The employee has discussed it with his or her manager, who has documented confirmation that the activity does not conflict with the employee’s duties at LAC or present other risks to LAC.

The code does not go as far as memos that government scientists have received in recent years counseling them to avoid speaking or sharing their findings at all. But it does contain language that makes it difficult for librarians and archivists to speak outside of official functions:

​In any personal activities (i.e. activities that are not part of your work duties), employees should take care not to represent themselves as speaking on behalf of or as an expert of the Government of Canada or LAC, and should always bear in mind their duty of loyalty and the risks of real, apparent or potential conflict of interest or conflict of duties. In all cases, an employee may be required to modify or terminate an outside activity if the COI Administrator determines that a conflict of interest exists.

If any employee recognizes "wrongdoing," they are encouraged to “bring it to the attention of the Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure.”

The code “includes both a muzzle and a snitch line,” says James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, told Postmedia’s Margaret Munro. 

Toni Samek, a professor of library and information studies at the University of Alberta, saw "several clauses in the code as 'severe' and 'outrageous.'" Archivist Loryl MacDonald described the wording as “harsh.” 

Retired LAC archivist John Smart connected the code to a "generalized suspicion of public servants." 

According to LAC website, the institution's mandate is:

• to preserve the documentary heritage of Canada for the benefit of present and future generations;
• to be a source of enduring knowledge accessible to all, contributing to the cultural, social and economic advancement of Canada as a free and democratic society;
• to facilitate in Canada co-operation among communities involved in the acquisition, preservation and diffusion of knowledge;
• to serve as the continuing memory of the Government of Canada and its institutions.

However, in July of last year, LAC faced massive cuts to services, including hours of operation, interlibrary loans and staffing. LAC has also drastically reduced its acquisition of new material since 2009. These moves have drawn cries of protest from scholars who rely upon those documents for their work, according to an article from the Toronto Star.

“The decision to radically alter its lending program is the latest twist in what many Canadian librarians and academics see as a deliberate move by a secretive federal government to gut the institution, this country’s equivalent of the U.S. Library of Congress,” writes Joseph Hall.

Image Credit: Michael Powell via Wikipedia

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.