“From Free to Fee”: How Course Hero Exploits Teachers and Learners

In 2006, Andrew Grauer, then a student at Cornell University, founded Course Hero, a platform marketed as a means for students to share class notes and other educational materials. Over the years, Course Hero has grown into a player in the EdTech industry, boasting an extensive library of digitized educational content. While the platform presents itself as a learning resource for students, its business model relies heavily on leveraging the unpaid labor of teachers and students from public education institutions.

Course Hero’s website greets visitors with a promise: “Welcome to Course Hero — Tap into the brainpower of your brightest peers and professors. Discover the exact content you need, in a few clicks. Course-specific help. Textbook explanations. 100,000+ educators.” This extensive library of educational content drives traffic to the platform and encourages more users to join, upload more content, and even pay for it. In 2021, Course Hero was a darling of investors, an EdTech unicorn valued at $3.6 billion.

While educational content—PPT lectures, videos, study guides, take-home exams—is core to Course Hero’s value, it doesn’t pay anyone to produce any of it. Instead, Course Hero’s content comes from students enrolled in colleges and universities, who collect educational materials created by their professors and peers and transfer it into its coffers. Course Hero’s resulting online “library” of educational materials more akin to a privatized vault of intellectual property (IP) from which it extracts value. While corporations like Walt Disney must pay a workforce to create the movies and TV series it owns and rents out for a price, Course Hero’s content trove is produced by professors and students for free, but then made accessible to other platform users for a fee. Course Hero’s Basic Membership does not grant everyone access to all the content available on its platform; to “unlock up to 30 documents,” we must pay $29.95 a month for a Premier Membership. Course Hero profits from the labor of teachers and learners it does not pay for, effectively transforming educational resources made in the public system into a source of private capital accumulation.

Course Hero’s business model is a variant of “crowdsourcing,” a term coined by Jeff Howe in his 2006 Wired article. Howe posits that leading Internet companies are devising ways to mobilize and exploit the time, effort, and talent of billions of people without ever paying them. They use crowdsourcing to transform the unpaid labor of individual Internet users into valuable production inputs, thereby reducing labor costs for established corporations and providing cost-efficient opportunities for tech start-ups that either cannot or simply refuse to pay their workforce. Unlike the longstanding profit-maximization practice in capitalism where corporations downsize their local workforce and outsource tasks to lower-paid workers employed by contractor firms around the world, crowdsourcing distributes tasks from paid workers to a crowd of Internet users who, wittingly or unwittingly, work for free. As former Wired editor Chris Anderson says: “Users happily do for free what companies would otherwise have to pay employees to do.” Crowdsourcing has been employed by numerous corporations to tackle a range of tasks at little to no cost, serving their bottom line. As Trebor Scholz argues in the book Uberworked and Underpaid, “The productive power of the network [of unwaged users] becomes a dynamo for profits.”

Course Hero’s crowdsourcing business model turns professors and students around the world, including me and evidently one or more of my former students, into unpaid laborers for its profit. For the past seven years, I have been teaching an upper-year course on Digital Media Technology, Politics, and Democracy at Ontario Tech University. Every year, I share the educational materials I create with my students on my course website, free of charge. I do not assert copyright over my lecture notes, nor have I tried to commodify videos of my online lectures. I have never given anyone permission to sell or sell access to these educational materials. However, this has not stopped Course Hero from doing so, without my knowledge, until recently. I discovered 14 of my PPT slide decks (each with about 40 slides) for the course’s weekly modules enclosed within the Course Hero platform. When I attempted to view my own PPT slide deck for Lecture 4, which covers different ways of conceptualizing the politics and power relations of Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, the Course Hero platform demanded that I pay a fee: $3.99 USD per month or $47.88 USD per year to access my own lecture notes!

But it is not only lecture notes that Course Hero is cashing in on. A few months ago, I noticed that a digital copy of my 2013 book Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Globalization was on the Course Hero site, along with bunch of my journal articles and chapters. I went on Course Hero yesterday and tried to access an article I co-authored with my colleague Shahid Alvi back in 2014 in titled “Taylorizing Academia, Deskilling Professors and Automating Higher Education: The Recent Role of MOOCs.” I clicked on the article, and Course Hero swiftly delivered my eyes to another page, demanding I input my credit card information and pay a subscription fee to access my own article, which for the past decade, has been “open access” on the Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS) website, where it was first published. Evidently, Course Hero commodifies access to educational content it does not even own, and that is freely available elsewhere. If I want to get my content removed from Course Hero, I must submit a Digital Millennium Copyright Compliant Takedown Request. That is tedious, but I’ll do it.

While I am not generally litigious about copyright, the blatant exploitation by Course Hero compels me to reconsider. The platform’s profiteering from public sector-produced content, all under the guise of democratizing education, is an affront to the academic community. This model not only commodifies but also undermines the very ethos of educational sharing and collaboration.

EdTech companies like Course Hero monetize the products of academic labor without compensation or permission. These companies extract educational content created within the public sector, repackaging it for profit under the guise of democratizing education. This exploitation of publicly funded academic labor for private gain is a practice that must be challenged to preserve the integrity of education and protect the rights of educators and students alike.

Tanner Mirrlees is an Associate Professor in the Communication and Digital Media Studies program at Ontario Tech University. Mirrlees is a member of the Tech Lobby Project and author of Work in the Digital Media and Entertainment Industries: A Critical Introduction (Routledge, 2024) and co-author of EdTech Inc.: Selling, Automating and Globalizing Higher Education in the Digital Age (Routledge, 2019).

October 2, 2024

Google’s Digital Policy Power: Public Policy Shaping and Private Policy Making

Google (Alphabet) is one of the world’s most powerful corporations. According to the Forbes 2000 list, at the end of 2023, Google was the 10^th largest publicly traded corporation in the world, with sales of $317.9 billion, profits of $82.4 billion, assets of $407.4 billion and total market value of $2,177.7 billion. From 2001 to 2023, Google grew through mergers and acquisitions, taking over 257 companies. At present, its market share is multi-faceted and massive (91.62% of global search engine, 65.3% of browser, and 39% of global digital adspend) and its trove of IP is vast (111911 patents). At Google’s commanding heights are some of the wealthiest people in the world: Larry Page is the world’s twelfth richest person (net worth: $79.2 billion) and Sergey Brin is the 14th (net worth: $76 billion). CEO Sundar Pichai’s salary was $226 million in 2022. Google’s power is primarily based its ownership of capital, but its power extends to the politics of digital policy-making.

Around the world, governments possess the public authority to develop, preserve or transform the general policy and regulatory rules of society, and Google allocates a portion of its wealth to trying to influence these. For example, Google’s Government Affairs and Public Policy (GAPP) agency “interacts with government and elected officials to explain its products and advocate for policies” (Google 2024a). Mark Isakowitz (a former chief of staff to Senator Rob Portman) is Google’s head of GAPP in the North America. Karan Bhatia (a former senior official in the Bush Administration) steers GAPP’s global presence, interacting with states and policy-makers worldwide. Google is also a paid member of many business advocacy groups that play a role in shaping digital policy, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), and, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). Through its internal agencies and external trade associations, Google is a powerful policy actor with a stake in shaping the public governance of the communications and digital media industries, from telecommunications to broadcasting to the Internet and social media to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Google also lobbies against and for public legislation that impacts its business interests, and in 2022, it spent $13 million derailing anti-trust bills intended to disrupt its Internet oligopoly (Ratanpal and Sayki, 2023). Google’s political reach extends beyond the overt communications and digital policy domain: in 2023, it lobbied fifty two bills covering public policies pertaining defense, national security, trade, energy, infrastructure, labor, health, and more (OpenSecrets 2024).

Beyond its routine engagement with Congress, Google actively supports its favored political parties and candidates, aiming to influence election outcomes at federal, state, and municipal levels of government. Established in 2006, Google NetPAC is the corporation’s political action committee (PAC). “NetPAC allows Google employees, through their personal funds, to join together and support candidates who share Google’s positions on important issues” and the “NetPAC board bases its giving decisions on a number of factors, most importantly, the policy stances of individual candidates, committees, and organizations” that are important to Google (Google 2024a, para 5). In 2022, Google donated $8.78 million to Democrats, and $1.13 million to the Republicans, and as of February 2024, it had donated $2.55 million to the Blue and $494 thousand to the Red (OpenSecrets 2024). To gain tax breaks and win favor in civil society, Google’s charitable arm Google.org donates hundreds of millions of dollars each year to approximately 350 politically-engaged non-profit associations, independent third-party organizations and other charities (Google 2024b). Many of the beneficiaries of Google’s expenditures are local chambers of commerce and business advocates (e.g., Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce, Missouri Chamber of Commerce, and US Black Chambers Inc.), but to build its corporate social responsibility (CSR) brand, Google also spends on social advocacy groups such as the Independent Women’s Forum, the National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Transgender Equality, the LGBTQ Victory Institute, and the National Congress of American Indians (Google 2024b). Additionally, Google leverages the labor of knowledge workers to support its policy ideas by donating to think tanks, from the liberal Left (e.g., the Aspen Institute, the Brookings Institution) to conservative Right (e.g., American Enterprise Institute, The CATO Institute) (Google 2024b).

Through its internal policy agencies, external trade associations, lobbyists, NetPAC, affiliated civic groups and think-tanks, Google advances its broad policy interests to publics, legislators, parties, politicians, and even presidents to try to ensure public policy will sync with its preferences. While Google is not Government, its lobbying capacities for trying to shape policy—digital and otherwise—are vast. But is Google’s lobby a public policy-maker? 20^th century political theorists of policy would likely say “no.” A liberal pluralist theorist might construe Google as one of many diverse interest groups vying for influence in a marketplace of policy ideas, competing to persuade officials that its ideas are most beneficial for society while being counter-balanced by other groups seeking to exert similar influence, and settling for whatever “compromise” that results. A power elite theorist would likely view Google, along with its Board of Directors and CEOs, as part of tiny group of corporate, military and political elites that possess the power to make the most consequential decisions about society’s overall policy framework, without the public’s participation or consent. In the Marxist state theory tradition, instrumentalists would see Google as capturing and using government policy as tool for sustaining its profits via the exploitation of workers; relative autonomists would concede that Google exercises influence within state agencies, but emphasize their partial autonomy to establish and enforce policies that while not always of direct benefit to Google, are integral to reproducing the capitalist system. Liberal pluralist policy analysts, sociologists of power elites, and Marxist political economists would likely concur that while Google is a policy influencer, it is not a public policy maker. Government, not Google, is the ultimate authoritative policy-maker, possessing the mandate to safeguard the public interest through its policy and regulatory agencies and practices.

However, the idea that government is the sole policy-maker overlooks a social fact of today’s communications and digital media environment: corporations like Google have become significant private digital policy-makers in their own right. In addition to shaping public policy through its lobby, Google actively designs and enforces its own private policies upon people through the digital services it owns—Google Search Engine, YouTube, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Drive, Google Docs, Google Photos, Android, and the Google Play Store. Google’s digital policy is not publicly made, but serves as a de facto private means of governing the conduct of the more than five billion people logged into and using its apps and sites, platforms, and devices to search, navigate, email, schedule, collaborate, analyze, store, share, video call, stream, blog, listen, view, read, advertise, translate, and learn each day. All corporations that own digital services impose rules upon the agency and communications of the people who use them and Google is no exception (Gillespie 2018). Consider Google’s “Terms of Service,” which positions its service users as subjects of its authority (Google, 2024d): “these Terms of Service help define Google’s relationship with you as you interact with our services” and outline “What we expect from you”, including “certain rules for using our services.” Google declares that “Understanding these terms is important because, by using our services, you’re agreeing to these terms.” Google’s Terms dictate the relationship between the corporation and its service users, stipulates users must conduct themselves in compliance with the law, conveys prescriptive communicative norms and codes, and outlines what it may do to users, and how it uses their content and their data for its own ends (Google, 2024d). Google’s Terms have a global reach, stretching beyond its headquarters in Mountain View California across the territorial borders and communication and digital media systems of numerous countries, including Canada. They exemplify how alongside the state’s public digital policy and enforcement exists capital’s private digital policy-making and regulation.

In sum, Google (and perhaps all big tech corporations) are both public policy-shapers and private policy-makers. As a corporation, Google is primarily focused on pursuing profit maximization and paying dividends to its shareholders within the economic sphere, but its public and private digital policies and practices extend far beyond digital markets, infiltrating and impacting all spheres of social life, including the state. Google’s public and private roles in digital policy-shaping and policy-making underscore the importance of broadening digital policy studies in Canada. This shift moves beyond a focus on policies solely created by public departments of the Canadian federal government to include those developed within the private boardrooms of major tech corporations like Google. It also highlights the public interest value of The Tech Lobby Project (Thetechlobby.ca), which examines the private power and influence of big tech companies like Google on Canadian public communication policy frameworks and across online platforms.

References

Gillespie, Tarleton (2018). Custodians of the Internet: platforms, content moderation and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Google (2024a). GAPP Transparency Page. URL: https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency/ [February 6, 2024].

Google (2024b). Trade Associations and Membership Organizations. URL: https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/ddfc97f01d89290e37bc52abdd9704bc3314ec5598bebe9676c64cd7a5ba1a719acaf069c1f9c218986e507f58bf3b50c750119c778cb4e88e99f3fb4dd904b4 [February 6, 2024].

Google (2024c). Our Mission. URL: https://www.google.org/ [February 6, 2024].

Google (2024d). Google Privacy & Terms. URL: https://policies.google.com/?hl=en [February 6, 2024].

Open Secrets (2024). Alphabet. URL: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/alphabet-inc/lobbying?id=d000067823 [February 6, 2024].

Ratanpal, Harshawn, and Sayki, Inci (2023, January 30). Google continued to ramp up federal lobbying spending before DOJ filed second antitrust lawsuit. OpenSecrets. URL: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/01/google-continued-to-ramp-up-federal-lobbying-spending-before-doj-filed-second-antitrust-lawsuit/ [January 30, 2023].

YouTube (2024). Rules and Policies: Community Guidelines. URL: https://www.youtube.com/intl/ALL_ca/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-guidelines/ [February 6, 2024].

May 14, 2023May 14, 2023

Company Profile: Amazon

By Charnjot Shokar, M.A.

Amazon Lobbying in the News

2022 was a record year for tech lobbying amongst most major players, and leading the charge was none other than Amazon. The organization dished out a personal record setting $19.7 million in lobbying – exceeding the likes of Meta, Google, Microsoft and Apple.

In the same year that Amazon led all platforms in lobbying expenditures, A Globe and Mail investigation found that the organization created a number of subsidiary companies—such as Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services—through which it was able to limit its taxable profits as a whole. The documents obtained by the Globe and Mail found that staff were ensuring “profits from retail sales in Canada were booked in the United States” and that employees “were instructed not to spend more than two consecutive weeks or more than 182 days a year in Canada”. These efforts were put in place by Amazon to shield itself from paying the amount of tax that one could expect for a country’s biggest online retailer.

Both Canadian and American governments have come to rely on Amazon. In Canada, Amazon signed 45 contracts valued at over $10,000 each with varying government institutions, totalling over $15.3 million dollars according to the Government of Canada website. In America, the Defense Department divided its 2022 contract award for cloud computing to four firms – Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle, for an estimated total of $9 billion. Further to that, Amazon sole sourced a cloud computing contract with the US Navy in the same year for cloud computing services, at a whopping $723.9 million.

Who lobbies for Amazon in Canada?

Amazon has a long history of lobbying across many government departments, with nearly 900 registered communications according to the registry of lobbyists. Much of Amazon’s lobbying has been conducted through in-house representatives and the Ottawa-based Public Relations firm PAA Advisory. The table below reflects all of Amazon’s registered lobbyists that have held federal public office; contents of the table are taken from the registry of lobbyists. All lobbying communications below are active as of the date of this publication.

Name	Position	Firm	Organization	Public Office Held
Eric Lamoureux	Consultant	Conseillers Affaires Publiques Inc.	Amazon Corporate LLC	Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Office of the Minister (2004-2006); Policy Advisor, Health Canada, Office of the Minister (2003-2004); Special Assistant, Caucus Lisaison and Ontario Department of International Trade, Office of the Minister (2003-2003)
Matthew Larventz	Consultant	PAA Advisory	Amazon Corporate LLC	Legislative Assistant, House of Commons, Office of Randeep Sirai, M.P. (2015-2017); Administrative Advisor of Operations, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Deputy Minister’s Office (2015-2015); Student, Treasury Board Secretariat, International Affairs, Security and Justice Sector (2014-2015); Student Regulatory Affairs Analyst, Environment Canada, Regulatory Affairs (2011-2013)
Mark Johnson	Consultant	PAA Advisory	Amazon Corporate LLC	Issues Manager, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Biomanufacturing Strategy Implementation Team (2021-2021); Associate Director of Parliamentary Affairs, House of Commons, Conservative Resource Group (2018-2020); Project Leader, Canada Border Services Agency, Professional Practises Directorate (2017-2018); Policy and Stakeholder Relations Advisor, House of Commons, Office of the Member of Parliament for Portage-Lisgar (2016-2017); Directory of Parliamentary Affairs, Public Safety Canada, Minister’s Office (2011-2015); Parliamentary Secretary’s Assistant, Veterans Affairs Canada, Minister’s Office (2009-2011)
Thoren Hudyma	Senior Manager, Canada Public Policy	Amazon	Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC	Communications Officer, Office of the Prime Minister, Press Office (2000-2003); Press Secretary, Office of the Secretary of State of Multiculturalism and Status of Women, Minister’s Office (1998-2000)
Maximilien Roy	Senior Manager, Public Policy	Amazon	Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC	Director of Operations, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Office of the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophone (2018-2018); Director of Operations, Finance Canada, Minister’s Office (2015-2018)
Aliya Mohamed	Manager, Canada Public Policy	Amazon	Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC	Managing Director, Office of the Prime Minister, Tour, Scheduling & Operations Department (2013-2015); Manager of Tour, Office of the Prime Minister, Tour, Scheduling & Operations Department (2011-2013); Advance to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister, Tour, Scheduling & Operations Department (2008-2011); Executive Assistant to the Minister, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Minister’s Office (2007-2008); Executive Assistant to the Minister, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Minister’s Office (2006-2007)
James Maunder	Director, Canada Public Policy	Amazon	Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC	Chief of Staff, Industry Canada, Minister’s Office (2013-2015); Chief of Staff, Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, Minister’s Office (2012-2013); Director of Communications, Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, Minister’s Office (2011-2012); Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, Minister’s Office (2009-2011); Director of Issues Management, Natural Resources Canada, Minister’s Office (2008-2009); Senior Policy Advisor, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Minister’s Office (2007-2008)
Steven de Eyre	Senior Manager, Public Policy	Amazon	Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC	Senior Policy Office (Industry), Global Affairs Canada, Embassy of Canada to the United States (2013-2016); Research Analyst (CBSA), Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development, Embassy of Canada to the United States (2011-2013)
Patrick Robert	Manager, Public Policy	Amazon	Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC	Press Secretary, Treasury Board, Office of the Minister (2006-2007); Special Assistant, Environment Canada, Office of the Minister (2006-2006)
Naresh Raghubeer	Consultant	Sandstone Group	Amazon Web Services Canada, Inc.	Director of Policy and Parliamentary Office, Senate of Canada, No Branch (2012-2017)
Catherine Fortin-Lefaivre	Senior Manager, AWS Public Policy (Central Canada)	Amazon	Amazon Web Services Canada, Inc.	Communications Advisor, House of Commons Administration, Office of the Clerk (2010-2013)
Nicole Foster	Director, AWS Global AI/ML and Canada Public Policy	Amazon	Amazon Web Services Canada, Inc.	Legislative Assistant, Environment Canada, Minister’s Office (2002-2004); Special Assistant, Rural Development, Office of the Secretary of State (2001-2002); Special Assistant, Multiculturalism and Status of Women, Office of the Secretary of State (2001-2001); Summer Intern, Transport Canada (1996-1996)
Alex Maheu	Principal, AWS Canada, Public Policy	Amazon	Amazon Web Services Canada, Inc.	Legislative Assistant, House of Commons, Office of the Member of Parliament for Davenport (2004-2008); Special Assistant, Canadian Heritage, Office of the Minister (2003-2004)
Don Boudria	Consultant	Don Boudria Consulting Inc	Amazon Corporate LLC	Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Member of Parliament, House of Commons (2002-2003); Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Public Works and Government Services, Minister’s Office (2002-2002); Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, House of Commons (1997-2002); Minister of International Cooperation, CIDA, Minister’s Office (1996-1997); Minister responsible for La Francophonie, La Francophonie, Minister’s Office (1996-1997); Chief Government Whip, Whip’s Office, House of Commons (1994-1996); Deputy Government Whip, House of Commons (1993-1994); Deputy Opposition House Leader, House of Commons (1990-1993); Deputy Opposition Whip, House of Commons (1988-1990); Member of Parliament for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Parliament of Canada, House of Commons (1984-2006); Purchasing Agent, House of Commons (1975-1981); Stationery Clerk, House of Commons (1972-1975); Messenger, House of Commons (1970-1972); Store Clerk, House of Commons (1967-1970); Bus Boy, House of Commons (1966-1966)
Douglas Thomas	Consultant	Sandstone Group	Amazon Corporate LLC	Cadet Instructors Cadre Officer DND, Cadet Organization, Administration and Training Service (1985-1993)
Matthew Trapp	Consultant	Sandstone Group	Amazon Web Services Canada, Inc.	Legislative Assistant, House of Commons, Office of Earl Dreeshen Member of Parliament for Red Deer (2014-2015); Members Assistant, House of Commons, Office of Joe Preston Member of Parliament (2012-2014)
Kevin Bosch	Consultant	Sandstone Group	Amazon Web Services Canada, Inc.	Legislative Assistant, Human Resources Development Canada, Office of the Minister (2002-2022); Special Assistant, Environment Canada, Office of the Minister (2001-2001)
James Anderson	Consultant	PAA Advisory	Amazon Corporate LLC	Director of Policy, Foreign Affairs, Office of the Minister (2004-2006); Director of Policy, Health Canada, Office of the Minister (2003-2004); Sr Policy Advisor and Director of Communications, International Trade, Office of the Minister (1999-2003); Senior Policy Advisor, Human Resources Development Canada, Office of the Minister (1999-1999); Senior Policy Advisor, Human Resources Development Canada, Strategic Policy Branch (1995-1998); Senior Policy Advisor, Fisheries and Oceans, Strategic Policy Branch (1993-1995)
Noah Niznick	Consultant	PAA Advisory	Amazon Corporate LLC	Researcher, Parliament of Canada, House of Commons (2015-2015); Legislative and Communications Assistant, House of Commons, MP’s Office (Fin Donnelly) (2015-2015); Legislative and Communications Assistant, House of Commons, MP’s Office (Glenn Thibeault) (2013-2015); Parliamentary Assistant, House of Commons, MP’s Office (Glenn Thibeault) (2011-2013); Parliamentary Intern, House of Commons, MP’s Office (Glenn Thibeault) (2010-2011)
Marie Lemieux	Consultant	PAA Advisors	Amazon Corporate LLC	Hearing Support Assistant, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRD), Refugee Protection Division (2016-2016);
Steve Van Groningen	Consultant	PAA Advisory	Amazon Corporate LLC	Senior Strategic Communications Advisor / Manager of Written Production, House of Commons, Conservative Research Office (2016-2019); Researcher, Special Projects, House of Commons, Conservative Resource Group (2010-2016); Special Assistant, Prime Minister’s Office, Office of the Chief of Staff (2009-2010)

What does Amazon lobby about in Canada?

As per the lobbying registry, the top five subject matters that Amazon lobbies about are 1) Industry (493 registered lobbying communications), 2) Science and Technology (247), 3) Government Procurement (235), 4) International Trade (233), and 5) Privacy and Access to Information (204). It is worth mentioning that the first two subject matters are incredibly vague; even if one were to go through the lobbying communications individually, it is difficult to determine what specifically is being discussed in each instance.

According to the subject matter details provided in the lobbying registrations, nearly all of Amazon’s lobbying is in an effort to pursue Government contracts through their subsidiary Amazon Web Services’ cloud-based solutions software, and to influence policy decisions as they relate to cloud computing. Amazon Web Services provides “on-demand cloud computing services for individuals, companies and governments on a metred, pay-as-you-go basis. The ‘cloud’ refers to the on-demand delivery of IT resources over the Internet, such as servers, and the software applications and databases t hat run on them.”

Since 2012, Amazon has held many contracts with varying government departments, and the vast majority of those contracts are with Amazon Web Services for software and license/maintenance fees and computer services. Aside from cloud services, the company has reported that it looks to “work with the government to ease the process of selling goods and services online, and delivering them to consumers,” and “work with government to promote and support Canada’s digital economy, including the availability of a high-skilled tech workforce.”

What government institutions does Amazon lobby in Canada?

Amazon has lobbied 40 government institutions to date. A complete list of institutions was created using information from all active lobbying communications (26 at the time of writing) found in the Lobbying Registry and is provided below.

Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada (AAFC)
Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC)
Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
Canada Foundation for Innovation
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
Canada Post Corporation (CPC)
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
Canada School of Public Service (CSPS)
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Canadian Heritage (PCH)
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC)
Competition Bureau Canada (COBU)
Copyright Board of Canada (CB)
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC)
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)
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)
Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
National Defence (DND)
National Research Council (NRC)
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada (OSFI)
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
Shared Services Canada (SSC)
Transport Canada (TC)
Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)
Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC)

May 12, 2023May 15, 2023

Company Profile: Google

Google has been the most significant information network and search engine on the internet for well over a decade, and its ever-expanding pursuits see the company constantly growing. Its parent company Alphabet has expanded into markets from news to cloud services. Recently Google has battled with the Canadian Government over news sharing over Bill C-18. Bill C-18 is a new bill brought forward by the Minister of Canadian Heritage that would force social media and distribution platforms, like Google and Meta, to pay the publishers and authors of the news stories they spread on their platforms. This has been one of several battles between Google and the Government of Canada. Previously they have also conflicted with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada about the rights to privacy and access to information under PIPEDA involving search engines like Google.

Google Contracts: Google has steadily held contracts with the Canadian Government with a value of over $10, 000 for just under two decades, dating back to 2004 (this is the published start date of contracts due to the commencement of proactive disclosures). The contracts reached their peak in 2021, with 20 registered contracts accumulating to a total cost of $3, 699, 390.86. The contracts range from Google Workspace Business Plus subscriptions to IT services to National Defence contracts. The last year documented, 2022, saw a total of 11 contracts and marked a considerable downturn compared to 2021, but similar to 2020, in the government’s dealings with the company.

Google Cloud Corporation Canada and Google Canada currently have 10 active registered lobbyists. The majority of these individuals are from two lobbying firms. The first and most prominent is Summa Strategies, and the second is CFN Consultants. Summa Strategies employs five of the ten lobbyists and advertises itself as a public relations and crisis communications firm. CFN consultants comprise two of the ten and focus primarily on analytical expertise and government consultation. Managing Director of Google Canada, Sabrina Geremia, is listed as a lobbyist. Google Canada Corporation uses two additional consultants from CFN Consultants and four additional consultants from Summa Strategies. The data in the table below is taken from the Canadian federal lobbying registry.

Name	Position	Firm	Active/Inactive	Public Office Held
Alexander Schwab	Consultant	CFN Consultants	Active	Director, Joint and Combined CIS Force Design Department of National Defence, ADM IM July 2019 to June 2021Not a designated officeChief of Staff, Military Partnership Directorate, NATO Department of National Defence, VCDS July 2016 to July 2019 Not a designated officeChief of Staff, DGIMO Department of National Defence, ADM IM July 2014 to July 2016 Not a designated officeCommander, 76 Communications Group Department of National Defence, ADM IM July 2012 to July 2014 Not a designated officeProject Manager, Integrated Desktop Department of National Defence, ADM IM July 2011 to July 2012 Not a designated officeCanadian Expeditionary Command J6 Department of National Defence, Canadian Expeditionary Command Not a designated Office
Adam Yahn	Consultant	Summa Strategies	Active	Special AssistantIndustry Canada, Office of Minister of State (Science and Technology)(FedDev Southern Ontario) April 2010 to January 2011
Claire Smith	Consultant	Summa Strategies	Active	No public offices held
John Turnbull	Consultant	CFN Consultants	Active	Director General Cyber Protection Branch Communications Security Establishment, IT Security January 2014 to March 2016 Not a designated officeDirector Crypto Material Systems and Services Communications Security Establishemnt, IT Security June 2011 to January 2014 Not a designated officeDirector General Military Support National Defence, Chief of Defence IntelligenceJuly 2008 to June 2011Not a designated officeCommander Canadian Forces Information Operations GroupNational Defence, Information Management Group July 2005 to July 2008 Not a designated officeDirector Land Command Support Program Management National Defence, Material Group May 2002 to July 2005 Not a designated office
Josie Sabatino	Consultant	Summa Strategies	Active	Director of Communications House of Commons, Opposition Leader’s Office April 2021 to February 2022 Not a designated officePress Secretary House of Commons, Opposition Leader’s Office October 2017 to January 2019 Not a designated officeLegislative AssistantHouse of Commons, Member of Parliament November 2015 to October 2017 Not a designated officeSpecial Assistant, Issues Management and Parliamentary AffairsIndustry Canada, Minister’s office July 2013 to November 2015 November 4, 2015
Katlyn Harris	Consultant	Summa Strategies	Active	No public offices held
Kevin MacAdam	Consultant	Temple Scott Associates Inc.	Active	Director General PEI Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency February 2011 to May 2014 Not a designated officeSenior Policy Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Office of the Minister February 2006 to January 2011 January 28, 2011
Scott Munoch	Consultant	Temple Scott Associates Inc.	Active	Advance Tour Manager and Tour Director Prime Minister’s Office, Tours and SchedulingFebruary 1989 to November 1993Not a designated officeExecutive Assistant Foreign Affairs Canada, Office of the Minister August 1988 to February 1989 Not a designated office
Sabrina Geremia	Managing Director	Google Cloud Corporation	Active	No Public Offices Held
Utilia Amaral	Lobbyist	Google LLC	Active	No public offices held

What does Google lobby about?

Google’s interests span across several different government branches and vary from the arts and culture sector to taxation and tourism. The subjects that are being lobbied for are as follows: Arts and Culture, Broadcasting, Climate, Economic Development, Elections, Environment, Financial Institutions, Government Procurement, Immigration, Industry, Infrastructure, Intellectual Property, International Relations, International Trade, Justice, and Law Enforcement, Media, National Security/Security, Privacy and Access to Information, Science and Technology, Small Business, Taxation and Finance, Telecommunications, Tourism.

The contracts for CFN Consultants pertain to the lobbying for the National Defence (DND), Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), and Shared Services Canada (SSC) in an attempt to gather a government contract for utilizing cloud-based data management technologies. Meanwhile, Utilia Amaral, a consultant who works for Google LLC, has been lobbying Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), House of Commons, and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) for policies and programs pertaining to communicating with government officials about rebate programs for energy-efficient thermostats, including for Google/Nest smart thermostats. Summa Strategies was hired for legislative proposals, bills, and resolutions on Bill C-11, Bill C-18, and, more specifically, online content regulation. Sumana Strategies also pursues Copyright Act amendments related to user rights and intermediary liability, the Income Tax Act relating to a proposed ‘digital renovation tax credit’ for small and medium-sized businesses, and the expansion of section 19 to cover digital advertising.

What government institutions does Google lobby in Canada?

National Defence (DND)
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
Shared Services Canada (SSC)
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
House of Commons
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Canadian Heritage (PCH)
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
Competition Bureau Canada (COBU)
Competition Tribunal (CT)
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
Finance Canada (FIN)
Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
House of Commons
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Justice Canada (JC)
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)
Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Privy Council Office (PCO)
Public Safety Canada (PS)
Senate of Canada
Shared Services Canada (SSC)
Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)

January 20, 2023March 24, 2023

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.”

(Source: Jonathan Swan)

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).

(Source: POLITICO research; D.C. property records)

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 Cyr – Cyr 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 Angus – From 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)

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)

November 18, 2022April 7, 2023

Company Profile: Facebook

Facebook in the news:

The company formerly known as Facebook, now Meta, has been a major tech company for nearly two decades and continues to disrupt both the tech sector and policymakers. With the company’s recent focus on the metaverse and the creation of an alternate universe on the blockchain, there is bound to be new legislation and policy created to surround the expanse of Meta’s networks. Meta has already been in conversations with Washington in order to prepare its future, and further lobbying attempts are virtually guaranteed. More recently, however, the company has conflicted with the Canadian government surrounding the Online News Act, Bill C-18. Having just previously battled out the same topic with policymakers in Australia, Meta is lobbying for movement on policies surrounding the proposed news revenue sharing within Canada. This comes on the tail end of years of controversy and scandal following Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal and the revelations shared by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen about misinformation and Facebook’s news feed.

Who lobbies for Facebook?

Currently, Gregory Francis, Kevin Chan, Rachel Curran, and finally Garrick Tipaldy (the managing director of Facebook Canada), deal with the lobbying efforts for Facebook Canada. Both Kevin Chan and Rachel Curran have previously held public offices from 2004 to 2013 and 2005 to 2015 respectively. Rachel Curran has previously held the positions, in chronological order, of Director of Parliamentary Affairs at employment and social development Canada, Director of Parliamentary Affairs and Issues Management at the Treasury Board, Policy Advisor at the Prime Minister’s Office, Director of Personnel and Administration at Prime Minister’s Office, and Director of Policy at the Prime Minister’s Office. Kevin Chan previously held the following Senior Analyst at Privy Council Office, Executive Assistant at the Privy Council Office, Director at the Privy Council Office, Special Advisor at the Privy Council Office, Director of Policy Office of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, and Director of Policy and Research at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This shows the depth in which the lobbyists for Facebook have previously held valuable and influential positions within the government. Facebook is actively employing previous government employees in an effort to benefit from the knowledge, networks, and connections of these former government employees.

What does Facebook lobby about?

Facebook/Meta lobbies on the subjects of infrastructure, science and technology, and telecommunications. More specifically Facebook has registered its interest in lobbying about online digital programs (digital platforms), international telecommunications policy, and global broadband connectivity options. Their registration also notes that they engage with the government on taxation matters, especially with the proposed digital services tax.

What government institutions does Facebook lobby in Canada?

Facebook lobbies with a long list of 13 government entities ranging from:

Canadian Heritage,

Competition Bureau Canada,

Elections Canada,

Finance Canada, Global Affairs Canada,

House of Commons,

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada,

Leaders’ Debates Commission,

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,

Prime Minister’s Office,

Privy Council Office,

Public Health Agency of Canada,

Public Safety Canada, and finally

the Senate of Canada.

November 2, 2022

Company Profile: Sidewalk Labs

By Emmanuel Appiah

Sidewalk Labs Lobbying in the News

The Sidewalk Labs saga, involving the federally-provincially-municipally established corporation Waterfront Toronto, and Google subsidiary Sidewalk Labs, shows how transparency in lobbying communications impacts public trust in government collaborations with digital platforms. In October 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alongside Alphabet chairman Eric Schmidt announced that Sidewalk Labs would develop a smart city project on a 12-acre waterfront property in Toronto called Quayside.

One thing is clear from the Sidewalk Labs saga in Toronto: it was a highly ambitious and contentious endeavor by both Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto. The lack of transparency regarding the Prime Minister’s Office communication with Sidewalk Labs, and its perceived influence over the approval process is amongst several concerns raised by civil rights advocates, politicians, community leaders and digital activists.

The Sidewalk Labs project revealed a gap in lobbying communications law. A January 2017 phone call from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to former CEO of Sidewalk Labs subsidiary Google, Eric Schmidt was not disclosed to the public because the PM initiated the call. The revelation raised eyebrows given Trudeau’s statements in 2017 that, he and Schmidt “talked about collaborating on this for a few years now”. Although Schmidt was involved with Sidewalk during the Waterfront RFP process, Eric Schmidt was never a registered lobbyist for Sidewalk Labs according to the Canada Lobby registry.

Who Lobbies for Sidewalk Labs in Canada?

From 2017 to 2021, Sidewalk Labs had 75 communication reports involving a total of 37 senior officers. Lobbying activities represented less than 20% of the duties of each of the 37 senior officers at the company. No consultants were registered in the company’s communications. Sidewalk Labs’ lobbying communications are no longer registered with the Lobby registry.

Founder and CEO of Sidewalk Labs, Dan Doctoroff is the registered officer responsible for lobbying between the company and the Canadian government. Doctoroff worked in city planning, serving as New York City’s deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding for six years under NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He also served as CEO and President of Bloomberg LP before starting Sidewalk Labs at Google.

Two senior officers at Sidewalk Labs have previously held public office. As of February 2019, Public Affairs Associate, Ryan Guptill was registered in communications reports. He worked as a principal secretary to an MP in the House of Commons from September 2012 to February 2014. Since 2020, Guptill has served as the Vice President of Strategic Communications with Loyalist Public Affairs. Also, Policy and Program Delivery Associate, Maya Borgenicht, held a federal designated public office. Between September 2017 to July 20, 2018, Borgenicht served as the Senior Policy Advisor with Indigenous Services Canada. She also served as a Policy Advisor with Infrastructure Canada between December 2015 and September 2017. Borgenicht’s Designated Public Office status was not included in her Lobbyist Details until the March 2019 communications report despite her involvement in earlier communications.

What does Sidewalk Labs lobby about in Canada?

Between 2017 to 2019, Sidewalk Labs communicated and consulted with the City of Toronto, the Ontario government, and federal government on its development plans amidst growing concerns surrounding privacy and economic development.

As early as February 2018, Sidewalk Labs communicated with government officials about regulations related to the testing and piloting of autonomous vehicles. Sidewalk Labs consistently met with government officials to discuss possibly collaborating on transportation and renewable energy. This aligns with the platform’s early aspirations to integrate autonomous vehicles with public infrastructure (e.g., public transit and traffic lights) to boost efficiency and sustainability. Sensors would also use “machine learning, statistical modelling and image processing” track traffic flows. Its data collection plans also included optimizing parking through monitoring programs, predictive analytics over building energy usages, and sensors measuring temperature and air quality.

Sidewalk Labs’ initial plans for the Quayside development came with increasing public scrutiny over what seemed to be unregulated access, collection, and management of public and personal data. From May 2018 onward, Sidewalk Labs’ lobbying communications included communicating with government officials about privacy-related matters. At this time, the company’s registered lobbying information began listing the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in its communications report. While the data would surely be lucrative to Sidewalk Labs and other tech partners, critics believed the government was left out of the economic profits. Waterfront Toronto’s very own Digital Strategy Advisory Panel raised concerns that Sidewalk Labs’ plans for an urban data trust were too abstract and without specifics. The urban data trust would oversee data management of personal data collected from public spaces and digital infrastructure.

Affordable housing was a necessary selling point for the Sidewalk Labs project, earmarking 20% of the development to subsidizing housing. However, critics noted that the Quayside project would need to be scaled up or publicly funded through CMHC to ensure economic profits. At the beginning of 2019, the company’s registered lobbying information began listing the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in its communications.

What government institutions does Sidewalk Labs lobby in Canada?

Sidewalk Labs has lobbied 18 government institutions to date. A complete list of institutions is provided below using information from the Lobbying Registry.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
Finance Canada (FIN)
Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
House of Commons
Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
National Research Council (NRC)
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)
Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Privy Council Office (PCO)
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)
Public Safety Canada (PS)
Toronto Port Authority
Transport Canada (TC)
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)

November 1, 2022January 16, 2023

Company Profile: IBM

By Fizza Kulvi, PhD Candidate (McMaster University)

The lobbying practices of IBM Canada have not received as much journalistic attention as companies like Uber, Netflix, and Google. However, data from the Canadian lobbyist registry combined with public information provided by the company itself helps us get a sense of IBM’s lobbying in the US and Canada.

IBM emphasizes its investments in Canada, particularly in research, development, and innovation. It has registered lobbying interventions in policy debates ranging from cybersecurity, economic development, privacy, and health. The company highlights its research partnerships with the federal government, the Government of Ontario, and the Government of Alberta.

IBM lobbying in the US

IBM emphasizes that is one of only a handful of major companies that does not make financial contributions to political parties in the United States. The company has never had a political action committee, yet it has established a strong presence in Washington by lobbying and financing intermediaries. IBM lobbies about promoting modernized technology for governance, cybersecurity, competitive open source 5G market, trustworthy AI, Section 230 reform, and data privacy legislation. IBM has also decided to intervene in issues like immigration reform and the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. It took a stance against facial recognition software used for policing and surveillance. These interventions are a result of increasing pressures from shareholders, consumers and employees to address the company’s social impact.

Who lobbies for IBM in Canada?

IBM has relied on the lobbying expertise of numerous consultants from Crestview Strategy including Alexander Byrne-Krzycki, John O’Leary, Bryan Detchou, and Bridget Howe. All consultants have held public offices ranging from the House of Commons, Employment and Social Development Canada, and the Senate. Another consulting firm associated with IBM Canada is the Capital Hill Group.

Two of IBM Canada’s Government and Regulatory Affairs Executives, Tiéoulé Traoré and Alayne Crawford, have also held public office positions. Traoré served as a Parliamentary Assistant for an MP from Trois-Rivières from 2012 to 2014 while Crawford held multiple positions at the Prime Minister’s Office between 2008 and 2010.

A list of the most recent IBM consultants that have held public office is provided below.

Name	Lobbyist Details	Position	Public Offices Held
Alexander Byrne-Krzycki	Consultant	Consultant, Crestview	Legislative Assistant, House of Commons, Office of Ali Ehsassi (2021-2022); Legislative Assistant, House of Commons, Office of Sonia Sidhu (2018-2018)
John O’Leary	Consultant	Consultant, Crestview Strategy	Director of Communications Privy Council Office, Office of the Minister of Democratic Institutions (2016-2017); Director of Communications Employment and Social Development Canada, Office of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour (2016-2016)
Bryan Detchou	Consultant	Consultant, Crestview Strategy	Special Advisor to the Usher of the Black Rod Parliament of Canada, Senate of Canada (2019-2021); Special Assistant to Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard Parliament of Canada, Senate of Canada (2018-2018); Special Assistant to the Usher of the Black Rod Parliament of Canada, Senate of Canada (2015-2017); Administrative Assistant to the Speaker of the House of Commons Parliament of Canada, House of Commons (2014-2015)
Cameron Doherty	Consultant	Consultant, Crestview Strategy	Member’s Assistant House of Commons, Office of the Hon. Diane Finley (2020-2021); Parliamentary Assistant House of Commons, Office of the Hon. Diane Finley (2020-2020)
Bridget Howe	Consultant	Consultant, Crestview Strategy	Special Assistant Liberal Research Bureau, House of Commons (2018-2020); Parliamentary Assistant Member of Parliament, Kirsty Duncan, House of Commons (2017-2018); Constituency Office Caseworker Member of Parliament, Lloyd Longfield, House of Commons (2016-2017)
Tiéoulé Traoré	Senior Officer whose lobbying activities represent 20% or more of their Duties	Government and Regulatory Affairs Executive	Parliamentary Assistant House of Commons, Office of the Member of Parliament for Trois-Rivières (2012-2014)
Alayne Crawford	Senior Officer whose lobbying activities represent 20% or more of their Duties	Government and Regulatory Affairs Executive	Senior Communications Advisor Office of the Minister of State for Seniors, Minister’s Office (2010-2010); Advance to the Prime Minister Prime Minister’s Office, Prime Minister’s Office (2008-2010); Communications Assistant Prime Minister’s Office, Prime Minister’s Office (2008-2008)
Regan Watts	Senior Officer whose lobbying activities represent less than 20% of their Duties	Head: Innovation, Corporate, and Government Affairs	Director – Strategic Planning Finance Canada, Minister’s Office (2010-2012); Senior Policy Advisor Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Minister’s Office (2009-2010); Director – Parliamentary Affairs Health Canada, Minister’s Office (2008-2009); Policy Advisor (Infrastructure) Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities, Minister’s Office (2007-2008); National Caucus Liaison and Executive Assistant to the Minister Finance Canada, Minister’s Office (2006-2007)
Jonathan Ballingall	Consultant	Consultant, The Capital Hill Group	Director of Operations Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada, Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada (2014-2015); MANAGER OF OPERATIONS & SENIOR SPECIAL ASSISTANT REGIONAL AFFAIRS, APPOINTMENTS AND NCC Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada, Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada (2013-2014); SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE MINISTER Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada, Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada (2011-2013)
David Angus	Consultant	Consultant, The Capital Hill Group	Caucus Liaison House of Commons, Prime Minister’s Office (1985-1987)

What does IBM lobby about in Canada?

IBM Canada has intervened in policy debates about economic development, intellectual property, cybersecurity, immigration, taxation and finance, government procurement, and more. The tech company has taken a stance on Bill C-26: Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, Bill C-27: Digital Charter Implementation Act, as well as policies and programs related to temporary foreign workers, COVID-19, and regional economic development.

IBM also influences Canadian communication policy through investments in collaborative innovation through its IBM Canada Research and Development Centre (CRDC). One area of focus is promoting “made in Canada” disruptive technologies. This policy objective is carried out through the Southern Ontario Smart Computing and Innovation Platform (SOSCIP) consortium which consists of the CRDC, the Government of Ontario, the Government of Canada, and seven Canadian universities. SOSCIP is credited with implementing Canada’s most powerful advanced computing platforms.

Another example is the IBM Alberta Centre for Advanced Studies (CAS), formed in partnership with the Government of Alberta. CAS engages Alberta university professors and students with IBM research, staff, and technologies to create technological solutions to challenges in environment, healthcare, and natural resource management. IBM also has made investments in Quebec (MiQro Innovation Collaborative Centre) and Atlantic Canada (IBM Services Centre: Nova Scotia, CARET Partnership, CHIA, New Brunswick IT Delivery Center).

What government institutions does IBM lobby in Canada?

IBM has lobbied many government institutions in Canada. A list of the most recent institutions is provided below. This list was created using data 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 Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor)
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
Export Development Canada (EDC)
Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev)
Finance Canada (FIN)
Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Health Canada (HC)
House of Commons
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)
Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
National Defence (DND)
National Research Council (NRC)
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)
Prairies Economic Development Canada (PrairiesCan)
Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Privy Council Office (PCO)
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)
Public Safety Canada (PS)
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
Senate of Canada
Service Canada (ServCan)
Shared Services Canada (SSC)
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
Transport Canada (TC)
Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)
Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC)

October 31, 2022November 1, 2022

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, 2020 – James 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, 2021 – Joelle 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, 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)
May 19, 2020 – Dan 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, 2019 – Stephanie 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, 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, 2019 – Stephanie 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, 2018 – James 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, 2021 – Colin 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, 2020 – Michelle Rempel Garner, Member of Parliament | House of Commons

Subject Matter: Science and Technology

Corresponding Communication Reports:

October 23, 2020 – Pierre-Marc Perreault, Acting Director, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
March 03, 2020 – Julie Boyer, Director General – International Trade | Cultural Affairs | Canadian Heritage (PCH)
February 13, 2020 – Paul Halucha, Assistant Secretary to Cabinet – Economic and Regional Development Policy | Privy Council Office (PCO)
January 01, 2020 – Bradley 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, 2020 – Bradley Callaghan, Assistant Deputy Commissioner | Mergers and Monopolistic Practices Branch | Competition Bureau Canada (COBU)
October 30, 2019 – Andrew 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)

Category: Company Profile

“From Free to Fee”: How Course Hero Exploits Teachers and Learners

Google’s Digital Policy Power: Public Policy Shaping and Private Policy Making

Company Profile: Amazon

Amazon Lobbying in the News

Who lobbies for Amazon in Canada?

What does Amazon lobby about in Canada?

What government institutions does Amazon lobby in Canada?

Company Profile: Google

Company Profile: Oracle

Other posts about Oracle

Company Profile: Microsoft

Company Profile: Facebook

Company Profile: Sidewalk Labs

Sidewalk Labs Lobbying in the News

Who Lobbies for Sidewalk Labs in Canada?

What does Sidewalk Labs lobby about in Canada?

What government institutions does Sidewalk Labs lobby in Canada?

Company Profile: IBM

IBM lobbying in the US

Who lobbies for IBM in Canada?

What does IBM lobby about in Canada?

What government institutions does IBM lobby in Canada?

Company Profile: Twitter