Note to lobbyists: no, the status quo won’t cut it.

Poilievre’s comments about “useless lobbyists” capture a broader Canadian disquiet about who’s working for who.

Last week, Canadian Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre gave his first address as party leader to a Canadian board of trade. In his speech, he spoke words that sent a thunderbolt through Canada’s typically docile government relations community. 

Calling corporate lobbyists “utterly useless” in advancing the best interests of working-class Canadians, he went on to say, “my message to corporate Canada is that when I’m Prime Minister, if you want any of your policy agenda pushed forward, you’re going to have to convince not just me but the people of Canada that it is good for them.” 

Rumour has it that the response behind closed doors in government relations firms across the country ranged from open mockery to deep bemusement. Regardless of reaction, the reality for Canadian government relations professionals is that the political landscape in Canada is (thankfully) changing. Given the state of Liberal party polling, if not the state of the nation, anyone who thinks that business as usual can continue is out to lunch. And what Mr. Poilievre said last week rang true: a potential Conservative government would not allow the status quo to continue.

That’s because should Conservatives form government, they would have a mandate to enact significant change. A recent poll by Leger suggested that 70% of Canadians believe the nation is broken and the current Liberal government is not focused on issues that matter. A change in government under these circumstances would be a clear signal from the Canadian public to push full steam ahead with structural reforms to make real progress on big-ticket issues like the affordability crisis, dramatic uptick in violent crime, and Canada’s profound housing shortage. Liberal/NDP policies and approaches aren’t working; if Canadians changed the federal government, it would mean that these practices would need to be replaced.

That would mean that the status quo of current government relations approaches would need to change, too. Take, for example, Canada’s telecommunications industry, which, through one of the most aggressive lobbies in the country, has been able to keep a stranglehold on competition-suppressing regulations that have saddled Canadians with some of the highest cell phone bills in the world. 

With regard to this industry, structural reform to address high prices and limited access is something that Conservatives have been calling for years. Still, the industry’s lobby has only responded to those questioning their posture with things like denial, (false) thinly veiled threats, and further price increases. That type of lobbying impunity - also employed by other industries like banks, grocers, airlines, pharmaceutical companies and traditional print media outlets - has worked with Liberals over the last eight years who have been unwilling or unable to dislodge their influence within the bureaucracy and regulatory bodies, or have themselves been active enablers of rent-seeking activity that has been detrimental to Canadian consumers. 

An industry lobby group that is currently part of the problem can’t be part of the solution if it continues to demand the status quo with a new government with a mandate to enact change.

The same could be said for special interest groups, consultants, and contractors who are banking on a listless bureaucracy with little to no ministerial oversight or structural accountability mechanisms to continue acquiescing to their every whim through a change in government. Ministerial oversight, or the concept that Ministers of the crown will ensure their departments manage to a measurable set of outcomes on a set of value for money and ethically sound principles, may be a concept lost to the current Liberal government. 

But a new government ushered in on a mandate for structural reform after a decade of high-profile government scandal can’t afford a cabinet whose primary deliverables are to show up to endless spending announcements and take photos chowing down on taxpayer funded lobster dinners. These new ministers will be expected to do things like vigorously scrutinize expenditures, rarely (if ever) bring an unfunded proposal to cabinet, read balance sheets, assess a broad range of opportunity costs of regulations, and manage to big-time objectives like restoring Canadian competitiveness, productivity, defence capacity, and public safety. They will be expected to live above the spirit of ethics laws, not far below them. They will be expected to manage to measurable positive outcomes as opposed to some sort of bureaucratic quasi-religious zealotry. 

Failure on any of these fronts won’t be an option.

And that’s because Canada of 2025 (or whenever the next federal election may be) will look different than the last time the federal government turned over. The next government will inherit a national debt so enormous that paying the interest on it will be more than is spent on Canada’s ailing health care system, a profound housing crisis, and a population that is pessimistic about the future and the government’s capacity to solve problems. Given the urgency and sheer magnitude of rectifying these problems, lobbyists expecting to get preferential treatment for objectives that have little discernible benefit to the broader Canadian public simply by “showing off their latest ESG brochure” or “taking Ministers out for lunch to the Rideau Club,” as Mr. Poilievre stated in his speech last week, shouldn’t expect a favourable response.

Similarly, lobbyists who have become accustomed to getting preferential treatment from the current Liberal government (and by rapidly declining traditional media outlets) simply by gaslighting reasonable concerns raised by the public - as opposed to attempting to materially address them - should rethink their approach. The same goes for lobby groups who have gained a reputation in Conservative circles for asking for one thing behind closed doors and something completely different in public statements or committee appearances. In the same circles, if a lobbyist is unwilling to put what they’re asking for on the record, don’t even think about entertaining their requests.

None of this is to say that a potential Conservative government would forgo working with industry or other groups to address the structural problems the current government has presided over: over-regulation, lack of regulatory stability, spending largess, structural problems in labour supply and more. Mr. Poilievre said as much in his speech, reiterating his love for business, free enterprise and people who risk their entire worth to start a business and build their dreams. Practically, what Mr. Poilievre’s broader comments on the matter likely translate to a resiliency warning. Corporate and special interest groups who have forgotten the impact of their postures on the broader public in their government relations positioning and growth strategies shouldn’t expect the continuance of preferential treatment if they do not have a clear, discernable, overall benefit to working-class Canada.

Said differently, if you’ve got an ask to the federal government, it sure as hell better reflect actual need and be reflective of fiscal and social realities facing the country.

So, to all the Senior Consultant Vice President Special Advisors out there grinding away in Canada’s government relations firms, tell your clients this. Shareholder returns are about to be much more dependent on their capacity to help working-class Canadians than on getting the Senior Deputy Assistant Special Advisor to the Minister of Deliverology to out for dinner. Plan accordingly.

(You can add 0.5 hours to your timesheet for that, this advice is on the house).