Lobbyists and Think Tanks
When Parliament considers digital policy, telecommunications companies have lobbyists in the hallways. When the CRTC holds proceedings, industry lawyers file extensive submissions. When media covers digital issues, think tanks provide expert commentary. The influence of organized interests on digital policy is substantial—and often opaque.
Who Influences Digital Policy
Industry Lobbyists
Telecommunications companies, technology platforms, content producers, and digital businesses employ lobbyists to advocate for their interests. Lobbying includes direct contact with officials, participation in consultations, campaign contributions, and relationship-building.
Canada's Lobbyist Registration system requires disclosure of lobbying activities, though the influence these relationships produce is harder to track than the contacts themselves.
Industry Associations
Trade associations represent collective industry interests. The Canadian Telecommunications Association, the Internet Society, and sector-specific groups advocate on behalf of member companies.
Think Tanks
Policy research organizations produce analysis that shapes debate. Some are ideologically oriented (conservative, progressive, libertarian); others claim neutrality. Funding sources—corporate, foundation, government—may influence research agendas and conclusions.
Think tanks provide expert commentary, policy proposals, and research that informs media coverage and policy development. Their influence often exceeds their visibility.
Advocacy Organizations
Public interest organizations advocate for consumers, civil liberties, privacy, accessibility, and other non-commercial interests. These organizations often have fewer resources than industry but represent broader constituencies.
Academic Experts
Researchers at universities provide expertise on digital policy questions. Academic independence provides credibility, though researchers may have their own perspectives and some have industry relationships.
How Influence Works
Information
Policy-makers need information to make decisions. Those who provide useful information gain influence. Industry often has more data and analytical capacity than government or public interest groups.
Relationships
Sustained relationships with officials create access and familiarity. Lobbyists build relationships over years, creating advantages in being heard.
Framing
How issues are framed shapes how they are understood. Those who set the terms of debate influence conclusions. Industry has resources to frame issues favorably.
Campaign Contributions
Political donations create relationships and, potentially, obligations. Telecommunications and technology companies are significant political donors.
Revolving Door
Movement between government and industry positions creates relationships and shared perspectives. Former regulators work for regulated companies; former industry executives join government.
Mapping Influence
Understanding influence requires tracking:
Lobbying registrations: Who is meeting with whom about what?
Funding sources: Who funds the think tanks and advocacy groups providing policy input?
Personnel: What are the career backgrounds of officials making decisions?
Consultation participation: Whose voices dominate regulatory proceedings?
This information is partially public but requires effort to compile and analyze.
Public Interest vs. Private Power
Asymmetric resources mean industry perspectives are better represented than public interests in policy processes. Companies can fund extensive participation; citizens cannot.
Balancing this asymmetry might require:
Public funding for participation: Resources for civil society to participate in regulatory proceedings.
Strengthened disclosure: More transparent reporting of lobbying, funding, and relationships.
Cooling-off periods: Restrictions on movement between government and industry.
Independent research: Government-funded research capacity independent of industry influence.
The Question
If organized interests shape digital policy through lobbying, think tanks, and campaign contributions, then understanding this influence is essential to understanding policy outcomes. How can influence be made more transparent? How can public interests be better represented against well-resourced industry interests? And what reforms would produce more balanced policy processes?