The Pross Policy Community Model
The previous sections explained that policymaking is a complex process that involves various stakeholders working together to influence policy outcomes. In his book “Group Politics and Public Policy,” Dalhousie University Professor Paul Pross outlined his theory of the “policy community.” According to Pross, “policy communities are “groupings of government agencies, trade organizations, media people, and individuals, including academics, who, for various reasons, have an interest in a particular policy field and attempt to influence it.” This section explores the concept of the policy community and its significance within the policy-making landscape. Insights from Professor Pross and other relevant sources are used to unravel the dynamics of the policy community.
The policy community refers to a network of individuals, organizations, and institutions that participate in and exert influence over the policy-making process. These stakeholders possess diverse perspectives, interests, and expertise, engaging in ongoing interactions and exchanges related to policy development and implementation. The policy community model aids in conceptualising the interactions involved in determining government policy.
The policy community is a network of stakeholders who work together to shape policy outcomes. The community thrives on the sharing of knowledge, research, and data, which contributes to well-informed policy decisions. Equipped with expertise, resources, and extensive networks, stakeholders in the policy community passionately advocate for specific policy positions, amplifying their voices within the corridors of power. The policy community often unites around shared objectives, rallying together to address societal challenges or advance specific policy agendas. Stakeholders within the policy community maintain collaborative relationships, working together to achieve common goals and values.
Pross emphasises the need to view each policy community as a unique entity with its own internal dynamics and power structures within the larger political system. His research illuminates the complex relationships, rivalries, and alliances among those involved in the policy community, all of which play a role in determining how policies are ultimately implemented.
The complex web of power relations among stakeholders is examined by Pross, examining how certain actors wield more influence or have greater access to decision-makers than others. The formation of coalitions and alliances within the policy community as stakeholders come together to pursue common goals or address specific policy issues is also highlighted. Policy learning is another important aspect of the community, where stakeholders exchange information, expertise, and experiences to shape policy outcomes.
Canadian lobbyist registries provide a wealth of information regarding lobbyists’ objectives, targets and communications. Each registry makes a distinction between types of lobbyists. As noted in Chapter 1, “in-house” or “corporate” and “organisational lobbyists” far exceed the professional hired gun “consultant lobbyists.” This data appears to support the assertion that groups are at the core of policy development.
Understanding the dynamics of the policy community is essential for anyone seeking to influence policy in Canada. Viewing the various players, both inside and outside government, as part of a dynamic entity helps make sense of the way things work. It allows for the identification of key actors, power dynamics, areas of collaboration, and contention on a case by case basis within a subset of government policy. Every area of government, such as health care, taxation, social policy, trade, and the environment, will have a community that leads its own policy creation. There will be smaller communities under the larger sector policy community, and these will often rise and fall depending on the specifics of the important issues of the day.
The policy community model provides valuable insights into the organisational dynamics within government, highlighting the presence of silos and the limited awareness of departments regarding activities in other areas of the same government. While the perception of a well-structured monolithic government may prevail, the reality is that departments often operate within their own spheres of responsibility, leading to a lack of awareness regarding unrelated subjects within their own government.
The heavy workloads and resource constraints faced by ministers and their staff necessitate a focus on their specific areas of responsibility, which further contributes to the siloed nature of government operations. Consequently, they may have a better understanding of developments in related subject areas outside their own government than of unrelated issues within their own jurisdiction.
Public Participation in Policy Making
Public policy consultation is the process of engaging stakeholders and citizens in the development, implementation, and evaluation of public policies. Public policy consultation can have various benefits, such as enhancing the quality and legitimacy of policies, building trust and social cohesion, and fostering democratic participation and accountability. However, public policy consultation also faces many challenges, such as ensuring representation, inclusiveness, transparency, and effectiveness of the consultation methods and outcomes.
There are different approaches and methods governments use for conducting public policy consultation in Canada, depending on the context, objectives, and scope of the policy issue. Some of the common methods include surveys, focus groups, town hall meetings, online platforms, advisory committees, and deliberative forums. The Government of Canada has issued various guidelines and frameworks for effective public policy consultation, such as the Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations, the Framework: Public Participation, and the Government of Canada and the duty to consult.
Information technology and social media are expanding public policy consultation's reach, accessibility, and diversity. These tools help analyse data, develop feedback systems, and expand consultations. These technologies make it difficult to combine the breadth and depth of public policy consultation.
This requires balancing consultation speed and quality. Evidence and knowledge are crucial to public policy consultation. These factors are essential to consultation enrichment. However, the legitimacy, relevance, and validity of process information sources and inputs are equally crucial.
Finally, public policy consultation has ethical and legal concerns. This is especially true for Indigenous, minority, and vulnerable populations' rights and interests. A fair and inclusive consultation process requires careful management of these factors.
In 2017, Ekos Politics conducted research with over 1000 people to ask their views on public engagement and consultation. The survey found that 67% of respondents were unaware that governments routinely provided opportunities for public consultation on policy development. And that 65% had never participated in any form of government consultation. Yet 83% said the government should “consult with as many people as possible” and preferably with a “representative group of people to ensure the views reflect the population.” Interestingly, only 38% said consultations should be “conducted only with those people affected by the issue.”
The message is clear. While there is a strong public desire to be heard, most people don’t know how or have the opportunity to take part in these processes. In an ideal situation, governments could employ a form of direct democracy whereby citizens get to make policy choices. The reality is that people are just too busy and often won’t have the expert knowledge of complex issues needed for thoughtful deliberations.
The chart on the public’s preferred engagement method suggests very few people are regularly monitoring departmental websites for consultation information and opportunities. As we will see later, such government internet resources provide a treasure trove of valuable information for anyone seeking to communicate with or respond to the government. But someone needs to be researching these sources in a routine, methodical manner. That is why trade organizations and special interest groups are so important and will likely remain the lynchpin of government relations for a long time to come.
Trade Organizations and Interest Groups
The terms interest group and trade organization, or pressure group, are often used interchangeably so some clarification is needed. Groups by their nature embody an aggregation of interests that is useful to the functioning of government. The term interest group refers to the “more general sense of a group sharing a common interest,” while trade organization refers to those organizations that have “chosen to embark on political activity.” Without either of these types of groups it would be much harder for modern governments to operate.
Trade organizations are organizations whose members act together to influence public policy in order to promote their common interest. Trade organizations are reasonably permanent in the policy making process while interest groups and the concerns of individuals tend to be transitory or highly specific. These trade organizations seek an active role in the governing process. They do not strive for governmental power, as do political parties, but they do attempt to influence decision making within their particular field of interest over time. Most scholars accept that trade organizations are partners within the governmental system.
In his review of group politics and public policy development, Frank Baumgartner writes that “groups are at the heart of the political process: they are central to the process of representation...they disseminate information from political elites to the mass public... they are active in every level of government in providing information, in speaking for affected constituencies and in debating the merits of proposed policy changes.” Not only do trade organizations have a say in policy development but they also have a role in legitimising decisions of government to their own members and the public.
The way in which trade organizations relate to government also differs from the role assumed by individuals and issue-oriented interest groups. People who interact with legislators for their own specific interests usually seek redress for an administrative wrong and issue oriented groups typically join together for a specific and finite purpose, such as creation of a park or prevention of a precise policy initiative. Trade organizations, however, are here for the duration. They generally have an objective in playing a role over the long-term and working constructively with successive governments and legislators over a broad number of policy issues within their given field. The membership base, long-term focus and policy specialization of trade organizations is what ultimately provides these organizations with political influence.
Context of Advocacy In Canada
Legitimacy
The term lobbyist carries a loaded connotation, often tainted with preconceived notions of corruption and disdain for lobbyists and their political friends. Unfortunately, misconceptions and unfavourable presumptions about lobbying and government relations have become a reality.
Admittedly, corporate lobbying has earned a tarnished reputation, and it would be disingenuous to deny that some of the negative perception is justified. The media love sensational stories of lobbying malpractice and political corruption. This perpetuates the view that lobbying is an inherently grim aspect of politics. However, these high-profile cases are aberrations rather than the norm.
In truth, the majority of government relations activity in Canada is legitimate, albeit often operating below the public radar. It is a vital component of the democratic process, enabling individuals and organizations to advocate for their interests within the framework of our governance. Yet, the media's preference for salacious narratives and politicians' reluctance to openly acknowledge the importance of government relations have contributed to the persisting misconception.
At the heart of government relations is effective communication between legislators, public servants, political staff, other stakeholders, the media, and the public. However, government relations advocacy is more than telling the government what you want. It is understanding what is possible, who is responsible and accountable, and, possibly most relevantly, knowing precisely what your organization really needs. Lobbying is the sharp edge of government relations. It is the active, visible part of communicating with officials. But it should not be the first part. The direct lobbying phase is really the enactment of an advocacy plan. The better the plan, the better the results are likely to be.
While advocacy may, at face value, seem to be a selfish pursuit, in reality, it helps promote better government. The primary objective is to facilitate effective dialogue, promote understanding, and exchange information among these stakeholders, ultimately contributing to informed decision-making and the development of better public policy. This process offers mutual benefits to all parties involved. Elected officials gain valuable insights into the needs and concerns of various interest groups and constituents through government relations.
Officials, such as civil servants and agency heads, also benefit from government relations. They receive valuable input from external stakeholders, including industry representatives, advocacy groups, and community organizations. This input enhances their ability to design and implement effective, efficient policies that align with the broader goals of the government.
Government relations advocacy greatly benefits the public by enabling their voices to be heard and considered in the policy-making process. While voters can always and should express their individual concerns to the government, the aggregation of their interests through groups such as unions, community, trade, and professional associations strengthens their voice. Through these efforts, individuals and organizations can effectively advocate for their interests, share relevant data and expertise, and actively contribute to shaping public policies that address societal needs and concerns.
As noted earlier, direct lobbying is a key component of government relations, providing organizations with a legitimate avenue to represent their interests in the policy arena. Legitimate lobbying involves constructive dialogue, the provision of information and expertise, and presenting well-informed perspectives to policymakers. It allows organizations to promote their positions, share insights and research, and engage in constructive dialogue. By presenting evidence-based arguments, organizations assist policymakers in making well-informed decisions that consider the diverse perspectives and interests of various stakeholders.
It is essential to distinguish legitimate lobbying from influence peddling. Legitimate lobbying focuses on providing information, expertise, and perspectives to policymakers, while influence peddling seeks to unduly manipulate or corrupt the decision-making process. Transparency, ethical practices, and adherence to relevant regulations are crucial for government relations professionals to uphold the legitimacy of lobbying.
Throughout the policy process, government relations advocacy by interest groups also plays an essential role as a facilitator of information flow, feedback, and expertise between stakeholders and government officials. Government relations professionals contribute by providing insights into the potential impacts and implications of proposed policies, aiding in the development of well-crafted and effective legislation.
This view is supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which notes, "Lobbying in all its forms, including advocacy and other ways of influencing public policies, is a legitimate act of political participation. It gives stakeholders access to the development and implementation of public policies. Lobbyists, as well as advocates and all those influencing governments, represent valid interests, and they bring to policymakers' attention much-needed insights and data on policy issues.”
Advocacy vs Lobbying
Despite their frequent confusion, lobbying and advocacy are two different ideas. The phrase "advocacy" is more general and includes a variety of actions used to advance a cause or problem, including arranging events, educating the public, and carrying out research. Conversely, lobbying is the sharp end of government relations. It usually entails reaching out to senior lawmakers or government representatives directly in an effort to sway legislation or policy decisions during the end phase of policy development.
A simplified distinction between advocacy and lobbying is that the former is mostly proactive and positive with a general area of focus, while the latter tends to be reactive, specific to a particular law, regulation, or government decision, and sometimes negative. As noted earlier as well, lobbying can be seen as a subset of the whole realm of advocacy. In essence, not all advocacy is lobbying, but all lobbying is advocacy.
Advocacy, however, is not a leisurely pursuit. It requires dedication, hard work, and an understanding of the evolving landscape. Fortunately, advancements in technology have democratised lobbying, empowering individuals and small organizations on limited budgets to now have a voice in shaping public policy decisions.
While there are many good books on government relations theory, they tend to focus predominantly on the United States, raising questions about the role of "big money" in the system. Additionally, various trade associations, environmental organizations, and professional groups have published manuals to assist their members in lobbying efforts. These resources undoubtedly have value, but they often lack a comprehensive framework for undertaking a sustained overall advocacy program. Combining the information provided in this book with perseverance and hard work may not guarantee victory in every endeavour, but it will undoubtedly increase a group's chances of making a meaningful impact on decision makers and contributing to the democratic process.
Context of Advocacy in Canada
With a constitutional monarchy, the Canadian government is a federal parliamentary democracy. This means we have a parliamentary form of government, with the King serving as the head of state, the Prime Minister as the head of the federal government, and Premiers as heads of the provincial and territorial governments. The rights of Canadian citizens are delineated in the Canadian Constitution, along with the authorities and duties of the federal and provincial governments.
Ten provinces, three territories, and the federal government are the primary targets of government relations in Canada. Each has its own separate legislative assembly and government infrastructure. Provincial governments are in charge of matters like healthcare, education, and natural resources, while the federal government handles matters like immigration, foreign affairs, and defence.
There are multiple political parties in Canada, each with its own platform and set of policies, which define the country's multi-party system. While there are a number of smaller parties, including the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, the two major parties in Canada are the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada. The Liberal and Conservative parties generally compete for power at the national level, while more regional parties such as the New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois, and Saskatchewan parties often form government in the provinces.
It's critical to be aware of the political climate in each individual Canadian province and territory in order to effectively advocate to the government. When promoting particular policies or projects, it is important to consider the distinct political culture, history, and interests of each location. For instance, Quebec's distinctive culture and language frequently have an impact on the province's politics in regards to linguistic rights and sovereignty. Alberta and British Columbia have a history of alienation from central Canada. So the political messaging that works in one jurisdiction may not be successful in others.
Fortunately, the process for making public policy is very consistent across all Canadian jurisdictions. A solid grasp of the parliamentary process, in addition to knowledge of local political cultures and agendas, is essential for success. Finally, attaining advocacy goals will also depend critically on forging strong bonds with important government stakeholders like employees, bureaucrats, and elected officials within the system. This entails building rapport by being open and honest about your aims and objectives and by offering insightful data that might support policy choices.
Representative vs Responsible Government
Much of the criticism aimed at lobbyists comes from people's perceptions of their experiences in the United States. It is important to clarify the distinction between the two systems. The US has a president, a congress and senate, state governors, and state legislative assemblies. As noted earlier, in Canada, we have a prime minister, a national parliament (including a senate), provincial and territorial premiers, as well as provincial and territorial legislative assemblies. Both countries also have a system of courts that acts as a third branch of government with the role of interpreting laws created by the other branches. While they may look similar, the two systems of government are actually very different. This is critical to know before starting a government relations advocacy effort in Canada.
An essential component of all parliamentary systems is cabinet government. Executive power is given to a cabinet under the direction of a head of government, such as the prime minister or premier. The head of government, who is typically chosen from among elected members of parliament or the legislative assembly, appoints senior ministers to the cabinet. These ministers manage particular government departments and are crucial in developing policies, making choices, and ensuring that they are carried out. Effective governance benefits from their knowledge and experience.
A fundamental tenet of cabinet administration is responsible governance, which ensures that the executive branch is answerable to the elected legislators. Since the cabinet is jointly accountable for its choices and deeds, it must continue to enjoy the support of the legislature's majority in order to hold onto power. The cabinet, by tradition, must always appear united. Internally, cabinet members disagree strongly with one another, but for the public, they must maintain solidarity. This is an important thing to consider when working with government departments. While various government staff or organizations may hold differing views on a particular policy direction, once the cabinet has made a choice, the rest of the government will fall in line to maintain the perception of solidarity.
The American system of cabinet governance, sometimes referred to as the separation of powers, is likewise very different. The president or governor serves as the leader of the executive branch in the American system, which separates the executive and legislative branches. The president or governor is elected separately and does not rely on legislative support to establish a government, in contrast to cabinet government, when the head of government is chosen from the legislature. There are, of course, merits to both these systems of government, but the parliamentary responsible government model significantly impacts how effective government relations are done in Canada. Tools that work in the USA may not be as useful in Canada.
In Canada, the role of party discipline is crucial due to the necessity of maintaining a legislative majority to wield executive power. In Canada, elected officials maintain close ties to their party caucuses, and party loyalty usually influences their voting habits. This strict party control significantly impacts lobbying strategies, as lobbyists must navigate party dynamics and cultivate relationships within the leadership of political parties to effectively advocate for their interests.
Conversely, the United States operates within a system characterised by the separation of powers and a higher degree of autonomy for individual legislators. In the past, American legislators have acted with more independence in making decisions, frequently following the opinions of their constituents and their own personal convictions. This decentralised power structure provides lobbyists with the opportunity to engage directly with individual legislators, emphasising the importance of cultivating personal relationships to advance their policy objectives.
In both Canada and the US, lobbyists can also help their efforts by building relationships with party leaders and key decision-makers within the political party structure to influence policy outcomes. Understanding party politics, coordinating with caucus members, and aligning lobbying efforts with party priorities are also key elements of successful lobbying strategies.
What is Lobbying?
Lobbying is simply the act of people and groups attempting to communicate their views to the government on issues important to their interests. Many people think lobbying is a bad thing; others view it as a necessity of public policy formulation and implementation. This book asserts that lobbying is just one part of a continuum of advocacy that constitutes government relations advocacy. "Lobbying,” as defined and tracked by the various lobbyist registries across Canada, is just the high profile intensive endpoint of well established policy making processes.
Direct lobbying to influence government decision making at the very end of the policy process tends to be costly in time and resources for anyone trying to get their message into the government at the 11th hour. However, successful organizations adopt a long term systemic view of government relations advocacy and use direct lobbying as just one aspect of their overreaching advocacy relationship with the government and related interests. The dual benefit of understanding and working with the system in this way is that it's cheaper and ultimately probably more effective in influencing public policy decision making.
Critical to this approach is knowledge of how the system works and intelligence gathering within the system. Generally speaking, organizations that interact with government systems tend to take one of two approaches: either they hire specialized consultants who are thought to possess in-depth understanding of the political and governmental spheres to assist them in formulating policies, or they decide to handle the task themselves. In effect, time is the real commodity in government relations. Organizations can build up their own knowledge, experience, and relationships over an extended period of time or simply pay someone who already has such capacities to make up the shortfall when it is needed. This book is for the former, but hopefully it will be valuable to all.
Organizations that possess current knowledge about the people and institutions within the system can act as their own best advocates. Contrary to popular belief, this form of government relations does not involve "friends and insiders." There is a clear pattern of success and failure in government relations. Groups that are better prepared and engage early fare much better when making requests to the government. Those who come late to the policy discussions or who are just reacting to government proposals tend to have an uphill battle to make any significant progress.
The best advocates come prepared for a serious policy discussion. They understand the government's objectives. They have data, bring solutions, have an understanding of what is possible, who can do what, and know precisely what they want from the government. They also ensure policymakers know the implications of the laws they are making. This level of readiness never guarantees success, but it gives these organizations the best chance to represent their members' interests.
It would be naive to argue, of course, that political insiders don’t have special access to their friends in power. This happens and will always be the case when organizations are willing to hire firms based on their consultant’s experience as former elected members, party workers, or even retired senior public servants. These people do have specialised knowledge and perceptions that can help an organization move its agenda forward.
Often, insiders are in a position to quickly arrange meetings with staff or cabinet ministers to help raise their client’s issues. This does help, but ultimately, there is no escaping the demands of the policymaking system itself. Even a premier or prime minister is going to be hindered from helping a political friend if it goes against the requirements of the broader public policy system. It's just as likely that a politician will ask their friends to “take one for the team” in order to help the greater political cause or stifle perceptions of favouritism that might occur if the decision was to help that friend.
Rather than access or influence being the core of government relations, time is the true commodity for success in affecting government decisions. Direct lobbying simply attempts to compress everything into a short, critical time frame, usually at the end of the policy development process, often after key decisions are made. Whereas complex government relations advocacy seeks to extend the time frame of weeks, months, or years to influence the context and upstream direction. Therefore, dealing effectively with the government is much more than just direct lobbying. Lobbying is late in the process, short-term, and often highly political. Advocacy is long term, nonpartisan, runs through the entire process, and can ultimately include direct lobbying, but it takes a systemic view of the policy system.