Company Profile: Oracle

By: Bradley McNeil, Ph.D. Student (McMaster University)

Oracle has developed a reputation for aggressive lobbying tactics designed to block their competitor’s success. Oracle is often critiqued for spending more money on lobbying and legal campaigns against its competitors than on improving its own products. This blog post highlights Oracle’s lobbying activities in the U.S. during the selection of a cloud service provider for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract announced in 2018. The JEDI narrative provides insight into how Oracle uses lobbying to remain competitive in the cloud computing industry. Shifting focus to Oracles acquisition of Cerner, a leading electronic health records company, this blog post reveals how Oracle seeks out major cloud computing contracts from nations.

Although Oracle lobbies aggressively in the U.S., there is less reporting about Oracle’s lobbying activities in Canada. This blog post uses Oracle’s lobbying activities in the U.S. to address Oracles potential lobbing interests in Canada.

Oracle Lobbying in the News

In 2018, Oracle was embroiled in a major contract dispute with Amazon, Microsoft, and Google regarding the ten-year Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) cloud computing contract worth approximately $10 billion dollars. The JEDI contract, to be awarded to a single vendor, would be the largest contract awarded in the history of cloud computing. Beyond its immediate monetary value, securing the JEDI contract would signal to consumers that the victor’s cloud services received the US Government’s  “stamp of approval in a market where ensuring a client’s data security is imperative.

The JEDI contract controversy began soon after the Pentagon announced that the contract would go to a single cloud service provider. JEDI was described as a contract “gift wrapped for Amazon”  commonly considered the industry leader in cloud computing and was already familiar working with US Government organizations such as the CIA since 2013. Amazon competitors Microsoft, Oracle and IBM, “launched a highly public campaign to break the award up into multiple pieces.”  Though a smaller company than Microsoft, Oracle was considered the ringleader of the aggressive lobbying campaign. Eleven days after the Department of Defence (DoD) began its solicitation for cloud providers for the JEDI contract, Oracle formally filed a pre-award complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which stated: “The single-award approach is contrary to industry’s multi-cloud strategy, which promotes constant competition, fosters innovation and lowers prices.”  The GAO denied Oracle’s allegations. Oracle’s initial legal push was unsuccessful, it was struck down and the Department of Defence maintained that a “single award is advantageous because, among other things, it improves security, improves data accessibility and simplifies the Department’s ability to adopt and use cloud services.”

Oracle’s aggressive lobbying tactics were more successful.  Lead Oracle lobbyist Kenneth Glueck created a flow chart titled “A Conspiracy To Create A Ten Year DoD Cloud Monopoly” which made its way to the desk of President Trump. The flow chart (pictured below)  points to various “Pentagon Officials, current Amazon employees and executives, as well as consultants working on behalf of Amazon, connecting them together in a criss-cross of business and professional ties.”

Glueck claimed he did not know how the document made its way to the desk of the President and denied the motion that anyone at Oracle gave his chart to the White House. Not long after President Trump received the document, he openly told reporters: “I’m getting tremendous complaints about the contract… with Amazon, They’re saying that it wasn’t competitively bid… some of the greatest companies in the world are complaining about it, having to do with Amazon and the Department of Defense and I will be asking them to look at it very closely to see what is going on.”

Pushing the conspiracy narrative further, Oracle managed to receive support from members of Congress to push the anti-Amazon offensive to the White House and Pentagon. Oracle also filed a case in the Court of Federal claims “alleging that Defense Department officials involved in the bid process had ties to Amazon.”

In August 2019, weeks before the winner of the JEDI contract was scheduled to be announced, President Trump ordered the contract to be placed on hold so that Defence Secretary Mark Esper could investigate the claims of the Government’s Amazon favouritism. By October, Microsoft was awarded the JEDI contract, causing Amazon to take legal action that would inevitably put the JEDI contract on hold indefinitely.

Ultimately, the JEDI contract was scrapped on July 6, 2021. Instead of the single vendor JEDI contract, the DoD announced the new Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability (JWCC) program which would contract services form multiple vendors. On December 7, 2022, the $9 billion JWCC contract was awarded to four cloud providers: Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle.  

The JEDI narrative provides insight into the power of Oracle’s lobbyist. Oracle’s aggressive lobbying and legal offensive against Amazon effectively set a series of events in motion which led to the cancellation of the single vendor ten-year $10 million JEDI contract –  which Oracle did not even qualify for based on falling short of the DoD’s security requirements – to the JWCC multi vendor contract which Oracle is now a part of.

The JEDI controversy illustrates Oracle’s lobbying and legal prowess. The company is a power-house in Washington that has earned a reputation for its fierce lobbying and legal campaigns. Oracle’s competitors and media critiques often argue that “the software giant invests more money on lobbying and lawsuits than on improving its products.” Columbia University law professor, Tim Wu, argues that Oracle is “the poster child for much of what’s wring with tech advocacy in the U.S…. using the government as a weapon to delay, annoy and extract value from other companies.” One famous satirical sketch (pictured below) by Leander Kehney suggests that Oracle’s legal division is much larger than its engineering teams.

(Source: Cult of Mac)

Kehney’s sketch may speak some truth. In 2022, Oracle had 82 lobbyists in the United States and its total lobbying expenditures for the year was $9,590,000, ranking 18th of the 8,720 registered lobbyist tracked by OpenSecrets. These numbers allowed Oracle to compete against the lobbying campaigns of much larger tech companies like Amazon who, for perspective, had 118 lobbyist and spent $16,090,000 in 2022, and Microsoft who had 96 lobbyist and spent $1,298,950 in 2022. Additionally, Oracle’s proximity to lawmakers makes the company an even more effective lobbyist. Oracle owns a $2.8 million townhouse on Capitol Hill only blocks away from Congress (pictured in map below).

No other tech company is stationed as close to Congress.  Politico notes that in 2021 the townhouse hosted several fundraisers for “lawmakers pushing legislation that would rein in the cloud and database company’s Big Tech competitors.” Glueck notes that the townhouse’s proximity to Congress is effective because it “leverages our footprint, it gives us visibility.” Oracle uses the space for its own events, and rents it out to lawmakers at a cheaper rate than hotels and restaurants in the are charge. Politico notes that Glueck acknowledges that “Oracle is choosy about which members it hosts for fundraisers in the townhouse, selecting mostly members who sit on committees that Oracle cares about or who hail from districts where Oracle has a presence.”

More recently, in 2022, Oracle lobbied about the Prepare for and Respond to Existing Viruses, Emerging New Threats and Pandemics Act, also known as the PREVENT Pandemics Act. Introduced in March 2022 by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Richard Burr (R-N.-C.), PREVENT would give the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to contract with both public and private entities to establish a network to track genomic data on pathogens. PREVENT seeks “strategies to improve the electronic exchange of health information between State and local health departments and health care providers and facilities to improve public health surveillance.”

Oracle’s lobbying about PREVENT comes less than a year after the company acquired Cerner, a leading electronic health records company, for $28 billion. When Oracle bought Cerner, Oracle CTO Larry Ellison claimed that the Oracle Cerner partnership would transform healthcare for patients by “providing medical professionals with better information- enabling them to make better treatment decisions resulting in better patient outcomes.” However, a year later, reports revealed that Ellison’s vision of healthcare is more ambitious than simply improving patient care. For Ellison, the Oracle Cerner is about building national public health systems for countries.  Ellison noted that Oracle Cerner was attempting to establish contracts with countries. “These global public health systems need to be built” noted Ellison, “We are in discussions with, not companies, but countries about building and deploying global early warning systems, so we can detect the next pathogen that threatens to turn into a pandemic.” In December of 2022, Oracle CEO Safra Catz noted that Oracle Cerner would be signing several enormous contracts with countries to build their national healthcare systems: “We will be signing contracts with a number of countries to build these national systems. And these contracts are enormous, I mean, absolutely enormous, and there will be several of them. So, the scale of this healthcare opportunity is unprecedented, but so are the responsibilities that go along with it.”Ellison adds that Oracle seeks to “provide public health professionals with an early warning system that locates and identifies new pathogens in time to prevent the next pandemic.” The Oracle Cerner partnership promises to fulfill opportunities created by the PREVENT Pandemics Act.

Who Lobbies for Oracle in Canada?

Since Oracle registered with the Canadian Registry of Lobbyist in 1996, the companies lobbying activities in Canada have been carried out exclusively through consultants that Oracle has hired. Currently, Oracle has eight active consultants lobbying in Canada.

Jermey Wittet – Wittet’s lobbyist registration with Oracle was renewed during the time this blog post was written. Wittet is a Senior Director of Government and Public Affairs at Edelman Global Advisory an independent government relations firm. From 2013 to 2015 Witter held a public office as a Policy Advisor at the House of Commons for the Chief Government Whip – Hon. John Duncan, P.C. M.P (Vancouver Island-North) and as a Policy Advisor/Executive Assistant to the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Veterans Affairs.

Pierre CyrCyr is a Managing Director of Public and Government Affairs at Edelman Global Advisory.  Cyr has held several public office positions. Most recently, (from October 2011 to July 2012) Cyr was Director of Political Operations at the House of Commons for the Office of the Liberal Leader. From 2005 to 2006, Cyr was also a Special Assistant at the Prime Minister’s Office in the Office of the Parliamentary Secretary. Cyr’s first public office held was as a Special Assistant at Canadian Heritage for the Minister’s Office where Cyr was a Scheduling Assistant from 2002 to 2004.  

David AngusFrom May 1985 to May 1987, Angus served as a Caucus Liaison at the House of Commons for the Prime Minister’s Office (Brian Mulroney).  David Angus is the President of the Capital Hill Group where he advertises his lobbying expertise in Government procurement.

Nevin French –French is Vice President of Technology at Edelman. Prior to his position at Edelman he was Vice President of Public Policy at Technation, a company which aims to “facilitate and enable the tech industry and government to work together to grow and evolve with new technology available”  

 French has held six public office positions. Most recently, between August and December of 2017, French was a Senior Analyst in the Energy Policy department of Natural Resources Canada. French also served as a senior analyst of International Policy at Fisheries and Oceans Canada from March to September 2017. From October 2016 to March 2017, French was a Senior Officer at Global Affairs Canada in the Eastern European department. For two years between September 2014 to September 2016, French was Deputy Director of Europe Bilateral and Advocacy at Global Affairs Canada. Before that French served twice as a Policy Analyst. First between August 2010 and June 2011 for the Energy Policy section of Natural Resources Canada, and then from June 2011 to July 2012 for International Border Policy at Public Safety Canada.

Sharon Chamberlain – Chamberlain, also from Edelman, has held eight public offices. Most recently, from July 2004 to September 2009, Chamberlain was Director General of Corporate and Shared Services at National Defence Canada. Chamberlain served a brief stint as Director General of Strategic Planning, Business Integration and Shared Services at Public Works and Government Services Canada between March and July in 2004. From May 2003 to February 2004, Chamberlain was also Senior Director of an Agriculture Portfolio Relocation Project for IM/IT Infrastructure at Agriculture Canada. From November 2002 to May 2003, Chamberlain was Senior Director of Acquisitions, Client Services Branch at Public Works and Government Services Canada. In 2002, between August and November, Chamberlain served as Senior Director of the Acquisitions Branch of the Special Projects Initiatives Directorate at Public Works and Government Services Canada. From June 1997 to August 2002, Chamberlain was Senior Director of Informatics Procurement Directorate, Acquisitions Branch at Public Works and Government Services Canada. From January 1988 to May 1997, Chamberlain was Director and Group Manager for the Acquisitions Branch of Business and Consulting Services Directorate at Public Works and Government Services Canada. Chamberlain’s public office career began October 1974 when she began working as a Junior Officer for various procurement positions at Public Works and Government Services Canada until January 1988.  

Graham Looney – A Director at Edelman Global Advisory. Looney held a public office as a Legislative Assistant at the House of Commons from January 2018 to May 2018.   

Kevin Tetreault  – Tetreault is Co-Founder of the Canadian GovTech Community and Vice President of Public and Government Affairs at Edelman Global Advisory. Tetreault has held three public office positions. Most recently, from January to May 2015, Tetreault was a Parliamentary Assistant in the House of Commons for the Office of the MP for Portage-Lisgar. From January 2013 to January 2014, Tetreault was Parliamentary Assistant at the house of Commons for the Office of the MP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. Tetreault was also a Parliamentary Assistant at the house of Commons for the Office of the MP for Brandon-Souris from January 2012 to September 2013.  

Darcy Walsh –  Darcy Walsh is the President of Edelman Global Advisory Canada. Walsh once held a public office from 2006 to 2007 when served as Director of Parliamentary Affairs at Public Works and Government Services Canada for the Office of Minister Michael Fortier.  


What Does Oracle Lobby About in Canada?

Oracle has hired consultants for all lobbying communications with the Canadian Government since the company first registered with the Registry of Lobbyist in 1996. Despite Oracle’s aggressive U.S. lobbying tactics, there have been less news about Oracle lobbying campaigns in Canada. It is not uncommon for global tech companies to pursue similar interests globally, and Oracle’s Registry of Lobbying profile suggests that Oracle is interested in pursuing cloud contracts with the Canadian National Defence Department and the Health Canada.

In February of 2022, Federal authorities reported that preliminary work in modernizing their data collection and analytic systems was underway. In a Global News article Dave Perry  of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute notes that it is high time for the modernization of the military’s systems and processors, some of which date back to the 1950s. Written April 5 of 2022, the Global News article states that Oracle had not yet held lobbying meetings with national security officials. However, by September 26, about five months after the Global News article which indicated Canada was in the preliminary stages of updating its national defence data storage program, Oracle hired consultants whose lobbying information reports indicate they speak with national defence departments and are “engaging the Government of Canada regarding Information Technology Contracts.” Oracle’s Consultants have listed Government Institutions such as: Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), National Defence (DND).

It appears that Oracle is also interested in bringing Oracle Cerner to Canada. Although there is not much news of Oracle Cerner contract talks with the Canadian Government, five (Wittet, French, Cyr, Looney, Tetreault, Walsh) of Oracle’s eight active lobbyists list Health Canada, and one (Chamberlain) lists Public Health Agency of Canada, as government institutions currently being lobbied. Oracle Cerner recently signed a ten-year contract with Niagara Health to “build a modern hospital information system that will serve all five Niagara Health sites and Hotel Dieu Shaver Health and Rehabilitation Center. On July 28, 2022, Oracle Cerner posted a podcast with Lyn Baluyot, Vice President and Chief Transformation Officer Lyn Baluyot, Canada. Baluyot noted that one of the problems for hospitals in Ontario when it comes to embracing new healthcare tech systems like Oracle Cerner’s is that the speed at which the technology moves outpaces the funding that hospitals must adopt these technologies. Baluyot notes that in Ontario, hospitals tend to “bare the brunt of the cost of these systems and doing the interoperability work” Baluyot notes that Ontario hospitals can really only benefit from systems offered by Oracle Cerner once smaller agencies can participate, but it is not clear to Baluyot where the finding for smaller hospitals will come from. Baluyot’s comments uncover a possible line of argument for Oracle Cerner as the company attempts to expand in the Canadian Healthcare system. Oracle’s consultants who list Health Canada or Public Health Agency of Canada as government institutions being lobbied claim they “seek to identify and secure federal procurement opportunities as it relate to innovating public service delivery.”  

Oracle lists “Government Procurement” as its only active subject matter currently being lobbied about.  The Consultants describe Government Procurement as “seeking to identify and secure federal procurement opportunities as it relates to innovating public service delivery”  and “Oracle is engaging the Government of Canada regarding Information Technology Contracts.”


What Government Institutions Does Oracle Lobby in Canada?

Oracle Corp has hired consultants to lobby a long list of government institutions in Canada. Below is a list of government institutions that Oracle has lobbied in 2022. This list was created using information from the Lobbying Registry:

  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
  • Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA)
  • Bank of Canada
  • Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
  • Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
  • Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
  • Canadian Coast Guard (CCG)
  • Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)
  • Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
  • Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC)
  • Correctional Service of Canada (CSC)
  • Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC)
  • Elections Canada
  • Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev)
  • Finance Canada (FIN)
  • Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
  • Health Canada (HC)
  • House of Commons
  • Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
  • Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)
  • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
  • Justice Canada (JC)
  • National Defence (DND)
  • Parks Canada (PC)  
  • Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
  • Privy Council Office (PCO)
  • Public Safety Canada (PS)
  • Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
  • Senate of Canada
  • Service Canada (ServCan)
  • Shared Services Canada (SSC)
  • Statistics Canada (StatCan)
  • Transportation Safety Board of Canada(TSB)
  • Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)
  • Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC)

    Other posts about Oracle

    Company Profile: Microsoft

    By: Bradley McNeil, Ph.D. Student (McMaster University)

    This blog post traces Microsoft’s lobbying strategies to valuable lessons that the company learned in its early antitrust battles in 1998. These early experiences taught Microsoft to position itself not as a source of friction for regulators, but as their aid. This blog post demonstrates Microsoft’s transition from an adversarial to a more amicable lobbying approach. This blog post also discusses Microsoft’s recent lobbying activities in Canada.

    Microsoft Lobbying in the News: A Brief History

    In 1994, Microsoft hired its first full-time Washington based lobbyist (Jack Krumholtz) to advocate for the company’s interests in software copyright and data-encrypting laws. Initially, Microsoft was reluctant to make its foray into the political scene. In December 1995, Microsoft CEO and co-founder Bill Gates remarked: “I’m sorry that we have to have a Washington presence. We thrived during our first 16 years without any of this.”  However, Microsoft quickly changed its stance on the utility of lobbying when the US Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against the corporation in 1998. The antitrust lawsuit filed against Microsoft was partly the result of successful lobbying by a coalition of Microsoft’s competitors that had “encouraged [Justice] to proceed promptly with an antitrust probe.”  Microsoft competitors, Netscape and Java, argued that an antitrust case against Microsoft was necessary because the company was improperly maintaining a monopoly on the personal computer (PC) market by restricting users from removing Microsoft’s Internet Explorer to use alternative programs like Netscape. Responding to the lawsuit, Microsoft invested heavily in developing a government affairs presence. By 2000, the company had quickly become one of the most dominant government influencers along with companies like AT&T and Lockheed Martin. 

    The 1998 antitrust case initially went poorly for Microsoft. In the summer of 2000, the court ruled that Microsoft would have to be split up into two divisions, one to produce the operating system, and the other to produce software. However, Microsoft successfully appealed the court’s ruling and in September 2001, the court decided that Microsoft would not have to be broken up. Microsoft settled for a lesser antitrust penalty and, moving forward, the company would allow PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software. Microsoft learned two important lessons from their early antitrust battles that has come to define the company’s lobbying efforts. First, Netscape taught Microsoft that lobbying for regulatory action against industry competitors could payoff. Second, Microsoft learned that it is better to stay on the good side of regulators. During the appeal process, Microsoft’s relations with regulators was characterized as adversarial. According to Judge Thomas Penfeild Jackson who ruled on the 1998 antitrust case, Microsoft executives “proved time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive and transparently false… Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for the rules of law that lesser entities must respect.”  

    Current Microsoft President, Brad Smith, manages to consistently maneuver “his company to an enviable position in a regulatory environment increasingly hostile to tech giants.” Regarding antitrust lobbying, the Wall Street Journal notes that Smith created a new Microsoft team of lawyers and lobbyist named “the Office of Strategic Relations” that pushes antitrust cases against competitors like Google in the US and Europe. Although Microsoft still uses lobbying as a tool to gain a competitive edge against competitors, under Smith’s leadership, Microsoft has been more amicable with regulators who are targeting the corporation’s industry competitors. For example, when Microsoft attempted to bring its “Netflix of gaming” service to the iPhone, Microsoft criticized the anti-competitive nature of Apples App Store for taking too large a cut of digital revenues. Distinct from Apples App Store, Smith noted that Microsoft would “operate by a set of open-market principles.” Smith comparison Microsoft’s open-market vision for gaming services to Apples restrictive, anti-competitive practices, served as a means to “seek regulatory approval  in capitals around the world” for the Microsoft’s $70 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the major gaming tech company.

    Formed from its early battles with NetScape, Microsoft’s lobbying strategy has been more proactive than reactive. In the contemporary era of increased regulatory scrutiny of tech corporations, Microsoft has made moves to dissociate with newer tech companies facing regulation.

    For example, Microsoft pulled out of major industry associations such as TechNet and the Internet Association. Microsoft, a generation older than many of the social media tech giants such as Facebook and Twitter who are now facing regulatory pressure, is using its “protracted legacy because of its earlier policy battles.” For example, speaking on Google’s 2020, and Facebook’s 2022 antitrust battles, Smith pointed to Microsoft’s own antitrust battles during the 1990s and early 2000s to suggest that Google and Facebook would be better off adapting to regulation rather than attempting to change it. Smith noted that although Microsoft was confident it could beat their antitrust cases at the turn of the millennium, the company  “failed to appreciate… the possibility or even probability that the law itself would change to adapt to this new world.”  Smith’s suggestion that Google and Facebook learn to adapt to the new regulatory environment not only serves the discursive function of separating Microsoft from current regulatory battles – it also comes at a time when content moderation controversies involving social media sites stimulated debate concerning whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be reworked. In 2019, Smith argued that  “Section 230 has a place and a time, but that time is now over.”  Dissolving Section 230 would place social media platforms under immense regulatory pressure regarding content moderation.

    Since 2021, Microsoft has lobbied in support of the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021. The Act anticipates the “risks that the Chinese state-capitalist autocracy poses to free market democracies.”  As Senator Chris Coons notes, China’s growing technological power is tied to the State government, which has mostly financed China’s technological boom through the Chinese Communist Party’s 2015 strategic plan and industrial policy ‘Made in China 2025’. The US Innovation and Competition Act has been criticized for its application of cold war rhetoric. Arguing for the efficacy of the Act, Senator Chuck Schumer exclaimed, “Around the Globe, authoritarian governments small blood in the water… They believe that squabbling democracies like ours can’t come together and invest in national priorities the way a top-down centralized and authoritarian government can. They are rooting for us to fail so they can grab the mantle of global economic leadership and own the innovations.” The Innovation and Competition Act supports private industry granting subsidies for technological research and development by non-government corporations. Some, such as Sage Chandler, vice president of international trade at the Consumer Technology Association, note that while Senators have condemned China for its bad industrial policies which pull private tech companies into the economic orbit of the State, “rather ironically, we punish them [China] and then start to copy exactly what they’re doing in a number of ways.” Regardless, the passing of the Act has been hailed as a bipartisan success by tech companies operating principally in the US. Before the Act was passed, Microsoft lobbied about the competitiveness bill, asking the US Congress to resolve their differences and swiftly “send legislation to the president’s desk for his signature.”  Microsoft notes that the Act supports scientific research on technological innovation in the areas of semiconductors, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence. The Act was approved by the U.S. Senate in June 2021. The bill has been regarded by the New York Times as “the most expansive industrial policy legislation in U.S. history.”

    Who Lobbies for Microsoft in Canada?

    Although Chris Barry is the President of Microsoft Canada and is listed as the responsible officer on the Registry of Lobbyist website, his lobbying activities have never represented more than 20% of his duties.  There are, however, several senior officers and employees whose lobbying activities represent 20% or more of their duties.

    Marlene Floyd, Microsoft’s National Director of Corporate affairs, has been a member of the Liberal party for over 20 years. From 2013-2015, Floyd was the Director of Operations and Outreach in the House of Commons for the Office of the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau. From 2004-2002, Floyd served as a Policy Advisor at the Department of Industry, Office of the Minister. From 2001-2002, she was an assistant at the Department of Finance at the Office of the Minister. Lastly, for less than a year in 2000, Floyd was employed as a Summer Student at the Department of Finance at the Office of the Minister, Paul Martin (2000).

    Christine Guyot, Microsoft Canada’s Director of Corporate Affairs has held two public offices. In 2015, Guyot served as an Information Officer with Elections Canada, Election Day Polling. From 2013-2014, she was a Parliamentary Intern at House of Commons for a Parliamentary Internship Programme.

    Julia Vaux, a Director of Corporate Affairs for Microsoft Canda, has held several public offices between 2006 and 2015. From 2013 – 2015, Vaux was Chief of Staff to the Federal Minster of Health, Hon. Rona Ambrose with Health Canada, Minister’s Office. In 2011, she was a Press Secretary to the Hon. Stephen Harper at the Privy Council Office of the Prime Minister’s Office. She was Director of Communications to the Hon. Rob Nicholson of the Department of Justice at the Minister’s Office. Vaux was also Director of Communications to the Hon. Diane Finley of Citizenship and Immigration at the Minister’s Office. She was Director of Communications to the Hon. Diane Finley at Human Resources Development Canada (HRSDC) at the Minister’s Office.  Between 2006-2008, Vaux was also Senior Communications Advisor the Hon. Stephen Harper of the Privy Council Office, Prime Minister’s Office.  

    John Weigelt, Microsoft Canada’s National Technology Officer, has also held several public offices between 1990 and 2003. From 2003-2002, Weigelt was Senior Director Architecture at Standards and Engineering Treasury Board Secretariat, CIO Branch. From 2000-2002, he was Deputy Director PKI Task Force Treasury Board Secretariat, CIO branch. From 1999-2000, Weigelt was Information Protection Operations Officer at the Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Information Operation Group. From 1998-1999, he was Senior Technical Authority Government of Canada, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), Treasury Board Secretariat, CIO Branch. From 1995-1998, he was a PKI Lead Engineer Department of National Defence, Directorate of Information Systems Engineering and Management. From 1993-1995, he was a Student at the Department of National Defence, Royal Military College (Computer Security Engineering). From 1990-1993, Weigelt was a Lifecycle Materiel Manager at Personnel Systems Department of National Defence for the Director Computer Systems Engineering.

    Microsoft has five active consultants. Kelly Hutchinson and Julia Mills of the Compass Rose Group. As well as Elly Alboim, Patrick Kennedy, and Alicia Adams of the Earnscliffe Strategy Group. Of these consultants, only Patrick Kennedy has held public offices. From 2004 to 2008, Kennedy was Chief of Staff at the House of Commons for the Office of the Speaker. From 2003-2004, he was a Policy Analyst at Canada Revenue Agency, Policy and legislation. Earnscliffe Strategies’ website notes that Kennedy served at the “heart of the machinations of Parliament during two of Canada’s minority governments.” To date, Kennedy has only logged one communication report on the registry of lobbyist website which indicates that Kennedy met with Justion To, Deputy Director of Policy and Policy Advisor Prime Minster Office on the subject matter of Industry.

    What Does Microsoft Lobby About in Canada?

    In Canada, Microsoft has lobbied to apply regulatory pressure on competitors regarding Bill C-18. Bill C-18, known as the Online News Act, would have social media companies pay the news media industry for news. Microsoft stated its support for the “Canadian effort to make big tech pay for news.” Microsoft’s comments came in February of 2021 when Canada was first considering taking a course of regulatory action similar to that of Australia’s News media bargaining code.  When Google threatened to pull its search engine from Australia because the country’s media bargaining proposal was unworkable, Microsoft was quick endorse Australia’s proposal and offered its own Bing search engine as an alternative.

    When Microsoft’s President, Brad Smith, was hired in 2001, he persuaded Microsoft’s top executives that “it was time to make peace as a company.” Smith argued that Microsoft would not be successful if it continued to treat regulators as adversaries as it had during the recent antitrust trials. Microsoft’s amicable approach to regulators has meant that the company prefers to support the aims of regulators rather than being a source of friction for governments. For example, at the beginning of 2022, Microsoft has lobbied Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) about climate. Then in September 2022, Microsoft announced a strategic partnership with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) “aimed at tackling climate change and driving sustainable growth across Ontario.”  Microsoft’s announcement of the partnership note that the move would  “serve as a model for other companies… to encourage use of clean hydro and nuclear power.” The partnership also noted that OPG’s use of Microsoft’s cloud platform Azure would help OPG modernize its applications and reduce its carbon footprint. The OPG-Microsoft partnership illustrates how Microsoft manages to associate its business developments with the causes of regulators.

    Microsoft also lobbies about immigration policy in Canada. In 2019, Microsoft lobbied about “Immigration policy and programs as they relate to attracting high skilled global talent to Canada.”  In January of 2019 the federal government granted Microsoft an exemption from labour market impact assessment (LMIA), that would allow Microsoft to bring foreign workers to Canada without having to first search for Canadians who could fill the positions.  Microsoft continues to lobby about immigration policies to bring highly skilled global talent to Canada.

    In addition to the aforementioned issues, Microsoft Canada also currently lobbies about the following subject matters: Broadcasting, Budget, climate, consumer issues, Defence, economic development, education, employment and training, energy, environment, government procurement, immigration, industry, infrastructure, intellectual property, internal trade.

    Over the last 12 months, Microsoft has logged 23 communications reports on the registry of lobbyist website. Seven of the communications reports have been about Privacy and Access to Information, 6 about National Security, 5 about Industry, 3 about government procurement, 1 about Science and Technology, and 1 about Climate.

    What Government Institutions does Microsoft lobby in Canada?

    Microsoft has lobbied many government institutions in Canada. Below is a list of government institutions that Microsoft has lobbied in 2022. This list was created using information from the Lobbying Registry:

    • Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
    • Canadian Heritage (PCH)
    • Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
    • Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC)
    • Competition Tribunal (CT)
    • Elections Canada
    • Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
    • Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
    • Finance Canada (FIN)
    • Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    • Health Canada (HC)
    • House of Commons
    • Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
    • Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
    • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
    • Justice Canada (JC)
    • National Defence (DND)
    • Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
    • Parks Canada (PC)
    • Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    • Privy Council Office (PCO)
    • Public Safety Canada (PS)
    • Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
    • Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
    • Senate of Canada
    • Service Canada (ServCan)
    • Shared Services Canada (SSC)
    • Transport Canada (TC)
    • Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)
    • Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)

    Company Profile: Twitter

    By: Bradley McNeil, Ph.D. Student (McMaster University)

    This blog post discusses the growth Twitter’s lobbying in the US and Canada.  It reveals that many of Twitter’s initial lobbying activities in Canada were shaped by Twitter’s and the Canadian Government’s reactions to the 2016 U.S. Election. Twitter has gone on to lobby, as well, on a growing range of issues in Canada from proposed online harms legislation to proposed online news legislation.

    Twitter Lobbying in the News

    Prior to 2018, Twitter was a modest spender in the realm of lobbying in the United States. In the US, Twitter’s total lobbying expenditures between 2013 and 2017 totaled $2,130,000. Since then, Twitter has nearly tripled their US lobbying expenditures spending $6,480,000 from 2018 to date. The surge of lobbying activities in the United States can be understood as Twitter’s reaction to increased public scrutiny following the use of US based social media platforms by Russian actors who interfered with the democratic process of the 2016 US Presidential Election.  

    Since the 2016 US Election, lawmakers have called for increased regulation of social media online advertising models. In this new era of increased scrutiny, the subjects of Twitter’s lobbying activities include: Net Neutrality, Consumer Privacy, and content moderation legislation.

    In 2017, as a member of the now defunct Internet Association (a powerful American lobbying group made up of major tech corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook) Twitter lobbied about Net Neutrality. The Internet Association’s campaign urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to uphold the 2015 Open Internet Order. Twitter argued that without the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would block the free flow of information by charging content providers more to access the Internet and reach users. In November 2017, Republican, and then Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai, claimed that Twitter was politically biased in its content moderation practices. Responding to Pai, Twitter asserted that its rules apply to all equally, and reaffirmed that Net Neutrality is central to an open internet. The FCC ended Network Neutrality rules on June 11, 2018.

    In September 2019, Twitter lobbied against the California Consumers Privacy Act (CCPA). The Californian act grants users the right to access their personal data collected by online platforms and gives users the option to stop their data from being sold to third parties. Twitter ran an aggressive ad campaign against the CCPA in the State of California. Twitter’s ads claimed that the passing of the CCPA would mean that users would have to start paying for their once free-to-use websites and apps. Although Twitter lobbied against the CCPA alongside the Internet Association, the Act was signed into law on June 28, 2018. The CCPA represents the first consumer privacy act in the country. Twitter remains free to use in California.

    In 2019 and 2020, Twitter lobbied against content moderation legislation which threatened to revoke Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In 2019, Twitter lobbied against the ‘Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act’ which was introduced by Republican Senator Josh Hawley. The Act would enable the Federal Trade Commission to audit social media tech companies for evidence of political biases in content moderation decisions. Hawley warned social media companies that their government granted immunity from user generated content (UGC) would be revoked unless tech companies were more transparent and accountable for the political effects of their content moderation decisions. Hawley’s Bill was a response to his perceived censorship of President Trump.

    Again, In 2020, Twitter lobbied against President Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship which also proposed amendments to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Twitter argued that the executive order was a politicized retaliation for Twitter’s decision to fact check the President’s tweet about mail-in voting. Twitter was a member of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) which argued Trump’s executive order threatening Section 230 violated the First Amendment rights of social media companies. The Executive Order also involved the creation of agencies to audit for evidence of political bias in the content moderation decisions of private platforms. Trumps executive order was revoked by President Biden on May 14, 2021.

    Who Lobbies for Twitter in Canada?

    Michele Austin has been the Director of Public Policy for US and Canada since 2018. The Canadian  Registry of Lobbyists indicates Austin has been Twitter’s only senior officer whose lobbying activities represent 20% or more of their duties. Austin represents Twitter at hearings with Canadian government officials, policy makers, civil society organizations on both sides of the border.

    Austin has held several public offices prior to her position at Twitter. Austin served as chief of staff twice under Stephan Harper’s government. From 2011 to 2012, Austin served as chief of staff at Public Works, Status of Women, Shared Services Canada, where she served conservative member of parliament Rona Ambrose. From 2006 to 2007, Austin served as chief of staff at Industry Canada under Maxime Bernier, the founder, and leader of Canada’s far-right People’s Party. Austin also served as a legislative assistant from 2000-2006, as a speech writer and communications specialist at the House of Commons and for the Office of James Rajotte, and from 1996 to 1997 at the House of Commons at the office of John Williams. In 2022, Austin was named a top 100 lobbyist by the Hill Times.

    In 2022, Twitter registered two senior consultants from the Capital Hill Group, one of Canada’s largest independent government relations firms, as lobbyists. Twitter registered consultant David Dyer who has had a 35-year career in government and government relations. From 1985 to 1989, Dyer was Chief of Staff at Industry/Consumer and Corporate Affairs. From 1984 to 1985, he was Director of Communications Supply and Services at Services Directorate. The Capital Hill Group’s website advertises Dyer as a specialist in Canada’s federal Copyright Act, tourism, and culture among several other services areas.

    Twitter also hired Fernando Minna who has held several public offices. Capital Hill Group advertises Minna as a specialist in government relations, reputation management, intergovernmental support, policy and regulation. For 25 years, Fernando has served in leadership roles on multiple political campaigns at both the federal and provincial level in Ontario:  Policy Advisor in the Office of Brantford MP Phil McColeman in the House of Commons (2016-2021);  Policy Advisor for the Minister’s office of Public Works and Government Services Canada (2013-2015); Issues Manager at the Minister’s Office for Public Works and Government Services Canada (2012-2013), Senior Special Assistant for Parliamentary Affairs  Public Works and Government Services Canada, Minister’s Office (2010-2012); Assistant to the Parliamentary Secretary Public Safety, Minister’s Office (2009-2010); and Legislative Assistant  Office of MP Phil McColeman, House of Commons (2008-2009).

    The Registry of Lobbyist website indicates that neither Dyer nor Minna have logged any communication reports with government officials since being hired by Twitter.

    that neither Dyer nor Minna have logged any communication reports with government officials since being hired by Twitter.

    What Does Twitter Lobby About in Canada?

    In 2013, Twitter opened its first Canadian office in Toronto. However, Twitter did not officially register as a lobbyist in Canada until 2018. The surge of Twitter’s lobbying activities in response to the scrutiny social media platforms received in the aftermath of the 2016 US Election spread across the border and into Canada.

    In 2018, Twitter’s initial lobbying activities in Canada concerned Bill C-76, the Election Modernization Act, regarding advertising. Anticipating foreign interference in the Canadian 2019 federal election, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-76 which required online platforms to create an online registry of all digital advertisements placed by domestic and foreign political advertisers during federal elections and make them visible to the public for two years. On November 29, 2018, Twitter shared its reservations about Bill C-76 with the Senate of Canada during a Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee meeting. Austin noted that Bill C-76 would be a setback for its Ads Transparency Centre, a pilot political ad registration system that was already being tested in the US. Austin indicated that Twitter planned to expand its Ad Transparency Centre across the globe, but the addition of uniquely Canadian titles would “add layers of cost and complexity to the engineering build” to the Ad Transparency Centre. Twitter also stated it was uncomfortable with the fact that Bill C-76 made Twitter solely responsible for the verification of identities behind political ads on their platform. Austin noted that Twitter had already “socialized” alternative visions of a political ad identity verification program with Elections Canada and individuals in the office of the Minister of Democratic Institutions. Twitter’s vision involved the creation of a Canadian equivalent to the United States Federal Election Commission (FEC) identity verification system. During the Committee meeting, Senator Linda Frum, who Austin lobbied in November of 2018, supported Austin’s solution, calling the creation of a Canadian equivalent to the FEC for the verification of the identities behind political ads a “no brainer”. Ultimately Twitter’s failure to support for Bill C-76 resulted in Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould’s condemnation Twitter for not signing onto a declaration of election integrity. Less than a month after receiving Gould’s letter, Twitter announced its Canadian ad transparency policy which stated they would ban political ads during the two-month pre-writ period of the election. Austin maintains that Twitter has an excellent working relationship with the Democratic Institutions department, Elections Canada, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and cybersecurity authorities. Austin notes that Twitter appreciated Gould’s criticism, however, the company wishes the Canadian government would appreciate the elections security efforts Twitter has made.

    More recently, when Canadian Heritage shared its Online Harms Proposal in 2021, Twitter submitted a critical response to Canadian Heritage. Twitter noted that although the company maintains an “excellent working relationship with both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)…digital service providers are not an extension of Canadian law enforcement institutions.” While the Online Harms Proposal generated considerable backlash from academics, civil society groups, and tech companies, Twitter’s response was perhaps most critical, comparing the proposed creation of a Digital Safety Commissioner possessing the power to block websites to the practices of authoritarian governments of China, North Korea, and Iran. During an April 26, 2022, meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Austin noted that Twitter happily collaborate and co-operate with law enforcement entities when appropriate and in accordance with legal processes. Austin argued that Twitter was a solution to these problems rather than a problem and quoting Canada’s Global Affairs Minister Joly, said: “More than ever, social media platforms are powerful tools of information. They play a key role in the health of democracies and global stability. Social media platforms play an important role in the fight against disinformation.”   Similar to the Twitter’s issues with Bill C-76, Austin indicated that the Online Harms Proposal was another “made in Canada solution” which may overwhelm and overcomplicate the scalability of Twitters content moderation policies and practices across the globe. The final report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security notes that “Although Meta and Twitter told the committee they invest heavily in technology and human resources to enforce their policies, the harms that arise from the shortcomings of their efforts are undeniable and there is good reason to believe that these harms will persist until the current approach is changed.”  

    Twitter also lobbies about Bill C-18, Canada’s Online News Act, which would require major tech companies to negotiate deals to pay media outlets to make their news content available on major online platforms. On April 26, 2022, Twitter told the Standing Committee on Public safety and National Security that the company was concerned whether the scope of Bill C-18 would extend to Twitter. Austin claims that Twitter does not generate significant revenue on news in Canada because it is a closed platform which forces users to leave the site when they click on news links. On Twitter’s latest registration version on the Registry of Lobbyist website which was posted four days after Austin’s comments to the Standing Committee, Twitter included Bill C-18 as subject they now lobby about.

    The list below indicates the specific subject matters, details, and government institutions Twitter is actively lobbying, including individual communication reports. The information comes from the Registry of Lobbyists.

    Subject Matter: Consumer Issues/Industry

    Details: Innovation policy, specifically policies or programs related to the open internet, inclusion, human rights, free expression and free association, the digital economy, net neutrality, data security and consumer privacy.

    Corresponding Communication Reports:

    • September 09, 2020James Cumming, Member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre | House of Commons

    Subject Matter: Elections

    Corresponding Communication Reports:

    •  February 01, 2022  – Philippe-Andre Rodriguez, Deputy Director | Center for International Digital Policy | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    •  October 23, 2019 – Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    • April 08, 2019 – James Cudmore, Director of Policy | The Office of Karina Gould | House of Commons; Matthew Hall, Policy Advisor | The Office of Karina Gould | House of Commons; Allan Sutherland, Assistant Secretary (Machinery of Government) | Privy Council Office (PCO)

    Subject Matter: Intellectual Property

    Details: Intellectual property proposals and legislation with regard to copyright and online content, user rights and intermediary liability.

    The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), specifically provisions related to intellectual property and digital trade.

    Corresponding Communication Reports:

    • October 29, 2021Joelle Pare, A/Director, Copyright Policy | Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch | Canadian Heritage (PCH)

    Subject Matter: Justice and Law Enforcement

    Corresponding Communication Reports:

    • March 18, 2021Caroline Bourbonniere, Head of Appointments | Minister’s Office | Canadian Heritage (PCH); Brian MacKay, Ontario Regional Advisor | Minister’s Office | Canadian Heritage (PCH); Raphael Yacobi-Harris, Policy Advisor | Minister’s Office | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
    • May 19, 2020Dan Lindenas, Director of Policy | Office of the Minister | Public Safety Canada (PS)
    • April 08, 2019 James Cudmore, Director of Policy | The Office of Karina Gould | House of Commons; Matthew Hall, Policy Advisor | The Office of Karina Gould | House of Commons; Allan Sutherland, Assistant Secretary (Machinery of Government) | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    • March 20, 2019Stephanie Kusie, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    • November 27, 2018 – Linda Frum, Senator | Senate of Canada

    Subject Matter: Telecommunications/Media

    Details: Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (Online Streaming Act).

    Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada (Online News Act).

    Issues related to content moderation.

    Corresponding Communication Reports

    • May 27, 2022 – Joelle Pare, A/Director, Marketplace and Legal Policy | Marketplace and Legal Policy | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
    • May 26, 2022 – Brian MacKay – Senior Policy Advisor | Minister’s Office | Canadian Heritage (PCH); Ron Ahluwalia, Director of Policy | Minister’s Office | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
    • April 28, 2022  – John Nater, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    • March 18, 2021 – Caroline Bourbonniere, Head of Appointments | Minister’s Office | Canadian Heritage (PCH); Brian MacKay, Ontario Regional Advisor | Minister’s Office | Canadian Heritage (PCH); Raphael Yacobi-Harris, Policy Advisor | Minister’s Office | Canadian Heritage (PCH)

    Subject Matter: National Security/Security

    Details: Internet policy, as it relates to cyber-security, national security, data localization and the cross-border flow of data.

    Corresponding Communication Reports:

    • April 08, 2019James Cudmore, Director of Policy | The Office of Karina Gould | House of Commons; Matthew Hall, Policy Advisor | The Office of Karina Gould | House of Commons; Allan Sutherland, Assistant Secretary (Machinery of Government) | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    • March 20, 2019Stephanie Kusie, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    • September 13, 2018  – James Cudmore, Director of Policy | Minister’s Office | Privy Council Office (PCO); Amy Archer, Policy Advisor | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    • July 11, 2018James Cudmore, Director of Policy | The Office of Karina Gould | House of Commons

    Subject Matter: Privacy and Access to Information

    Details: Government access to electronic communications transactional records.

    Privacy legislation or proposals such the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), the Digital Charter, and any proposals with regard to data collection, safety, and use.

    Corresponding Communication Reports:

    • March 16, 2021Colin Carrie, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    • February 24, 2021  Feb 24, 2021 – Jennifer Miller, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
    • February 22, 2021  – Dane Lloyd, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    • February 05, 2020Michelle Rempel Garner, Member of Parliament | House of Commons

    Subject Matter: Science and Technology

    Corresponding Communication Reports:

    • October 23, 2020Pierre-Marc Perreault, Acting Director, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
    • March 03, 2020Julie Boyer, Director General – International Trade | Cultural Affairs | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
    • February 13, 2020Paul Halucha, Assistant Secretary to Cabinet – Economic and Regional Development Policy | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    • January 01, 2020Bradley Callaghan, Assistant Deputy Commissioner | Mergers and Monopolistic Practices Branch | Competition Bureau Canada (COBU)

    Subject: Taxation and Finance

    Details:   Income Tax Act, with regard to digital tax proposals.

    Corresponding Communication Reports:

    • January 01, 2020Bradley Callaghan, Assistant Deputy Commissioner | Mergers and Monopolistic Practices Branch | Competition Bureau Canada (COBU)
    • October 30, 2019Andrew Marsland, Senior Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN) ; Brian Ernewein, Assistant Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN) ; Miodrag Jovanovic, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)

    Subject Matter: Budget

    Corresponding Communication Reports: There have been no communications reports filed under this subject.

    What Government Institutions does Twitter Lobby in Canada?

    Twitter has lobbied 15 government institutions to date. A complete list of institutions was created using information from the Lobbying Registry and is provided below:

    • Canadian Heritage (PCH)
    • Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
    • Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC)
    • Competition Bureau Canada (COBU)
    • Elections Canada
    • Finance Canada (FIN)
    • Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    • House of Commons
    • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
    • Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    • Privy Council Office (PCO)
    • Public Safety Canada (PS)
    • Senate of Canada
    • Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)
    • Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)