Taking It to the Hill: The Complete Guide to Appearing Before Parliamentary Committees

2. Techniques

Techniques "My view of props is go for it.' Your appearance is a public affairs exercise . Whatever you can do to draw attention to the cause the better." - Michael Makin, President, Canadian PrintingIndustries Association, Interview,July 3, 1997 ONE See How It's Done Every committee appearance is unique. The issue. The mix of witnesses and members. The parliamentary agenda. Public opinion. The media's interest. Each appearance requires a tailored response. Props help, too. These techniques shed light on some enduring lessons about taking your message to theHill. 8 SCENARIO ONE: Airing Concerns at the Right Time "Senior Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) officials, concerned about the prospect of critical testimony before the Senate committee from Canada's largest airport, returned to cabinet to seek explicit approval for a new amendment that met the airport authority 's objectives. In a rare move, cabinet agreed."1 -Tony Stikeman, President, Tactix Government Consulting Inc., Interview, June 28, 2005 IS $!•',!.' ;". ;..*The AUCC's straight "A"performancereveals that: 1. Success requires getting buy-in from as many policy leaders as possible. They must understand and embrace your message. This involves developing a long-term strategy. 2. The AUCC, and its allies, pushed for new funding while the political environment was ripe. It is important to do quality research to support your proposals and get others to champion your cause, too. 3. Working closely with others means being receptive to advice on how to proceed. SCENARIO EIGHT: Feeding off False Hopes "You have to understand the dynamic between the minister and his department. If a tight relationship exists, the committee is pure window dressing. Its possible and probable for the department to circumTechniques 26 TAKING II TO THE HILL vent the committee and for the minister to have the committee act on his instruction. It's happened, I tell you. They short-circuit the cornmittees contribution." - George Fleischmann, President andCEO, Food andConsumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, Interview, June 5, 1997 The Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada (FCPMC) had some concerns with the government's proposed Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Being unable to persuade the Department of Agriculture that this agency needed major restructuring, the association looked to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.The FCPMC, an association of some 180 companies, presented a constructive alternative to having a government-appointed and directed agency.The FCPMC tabled ideas about creating a board of directors from the businesscommunity that would report to the minister; it would adhere to internationallyrecognized quality standards; it would operate at reduced costs; and it would establish a neutral third-party arbitrator for complaints. It also explained that there were international precedents as models. The FCPMC was invited to the committee for one hour, it stayed for two, and it left the room feeling that the committee was genuinely interested in this proposal. In the end, when the bill was promulgated, there was not a single mention of this idea. Moreover, the government imposed just the opposite of what FCPMC wanted and exactly what the department had in mind. For the FCPMC the essential ingredients of approaching a committee are: 1. Go to the committee prescribing a well-developed solution (not just reeling off complaints). 2. A positive reception at the hearing may not mean that the committee will actually have an appetite for your solution (and recommend it to the minister) in the end. Unpredictable outcomes can occur in committee . 3. The committee should not be your only stop in the lobbying process. After the committee stage, you must do the necessaryfollow-up to press your case. . ! 27 SCENARIO NINE: Quick, out of the (Housing) Blocks "We had to move quickly along all fronts and bring forward the right amendment. Within two weeks of the budget, we got a $250 million saving for the industry. If we had waited only until the bill got to committee , it would have been too late." - Richard Bertrand, formerly of Executive Consultants Limited, Interview, November 18, 1997 Virtually overnight, the MacEachen budget of the early 1980s caused havoc in the construction and housing supply sectors by suddenly cancelling the Multiple Unit Residential Buildings program. "MURB" was initially developed to increase the pool of affordable rental units but largely resulted in granting tax credits to "wealthy dentists and doctors" (and many higher-end housing blocks were built). The abrupt policy change had lumber companies, rug manufacturers, appliance suppliers, and the like scrambling...