Making the right choice

In the December 2005 issue of Canadian Underwriter, Igal Mayer, CEO of Aviva Canada, talked about the important influence the federal election will have on the future of independent brokers.

He was right. But judging by the parties’ early campaign platforms, you’d never know it. During the early days of the 2005-06 campaign, some brokers rightly observed that the issue of banks retailing insurance in their local branches didn’t appear publicly on the politicians’ radar screens.

It is an interesting comment on today’s Canadian political scene that if brokers want to know which party to vote for in order to preserve their professional livelihoods, they cannot figure it out through examination of the parties’ public campaign statements or policies. All we know from reading the parties’ Web sites is that they love Canada, families, communities – and probably Martians if they were able to vote by proxy.

Interestingly enough, we have heard nothing from the parties about the value of small and/or independent business. From the beginning of the mandatory Bank Act review, the Canadian Bankers Association has lobbied the government to change the Bank Act to allow bank customers access to information about insurance products within local bank branches. Such a move, brokers argue, would be the first step towards undermining the business – and eventually the existence – of independent brokers.

So where do the parties stand on the issue of the Bank Act review? Who knows?

The Liberals buried the Bank Act review until the election was over. Unfortunately when Finance Minister Ralph Goodale did this, he neglected to mention what the Liberals would do if they won the election. Brokers are apparently meeting up with Liberals who both support and reject the idea of banks retailing insurance.

Ideologically, the Conservatives might well support small business and independent brokers, but they could just as easily support the banks’ interests as well. Some brokers indicate certain, high-ranking Conservatives would say ‘No’ to retailing insurance in bank branches.

But beware of political sophistry. Would MPs and candidates, for example, say “retailing insurance” excludes measures such as distributing insurance information in local bank branches, or making referrals from the local branches to the bank’s main insurance office? If yes, then brokers might well consider voting for a different party.

Brokers must also take up their professional interests with the NDP, despite what the polls say. It would be easy to dismiss the NDP on the basis that the party has never won a federal election. And yet, brokers must not forget about the minority government factor. Will the NDP hold the balance of power after this election, as they did the last term? Best not to ignore the true powerbrokers.

For brokers, lobbying all of the parties’ candidates is critical. In fact, the election has made it much easier to do. As one broker noted, the election has provided an opportunity to clarify issues with a captive audience of incumbent and prospective MPs.

Without doubt, the brokers’ lobbying on the issue of the Bank Act review has been more difficult than it needs to be, thanks to the fractured nature of Canada’s political scene. Brokers have to forge individual, personal connections with candidates of all stripes and clearly cannot rely on party affiliation or platitudes.

The result is that brokers are stuck playing the numbers game. They can only hope they talk to more incumbents and candidates who support brokers than those who do not. This so-called “scorecard” method of political lobbying is arduous, but necessary.

It’s arduous in the sense that brokers have to do more work. They have to ask individuals of all party stripes what they think about the issue and divine from their responses how they may help or hinder the cause. Without knowing these numbers, though, the profession could be blindsided by a truck without ever getting the license plate number.

In fact, if brokers ever need an example of how not to lobby, they need only look at the banks’ efforts to get politicians to change the Bank Act in 1992. Banks would likely deny this, but brokers say the banks effectively packed in their lobby in 1992, figuring their desired changes were “in the bag.”

But Canadian politics being what it is today – and with apologies to Yogi Berra – it’s not even over when it’s over. And so, even after the final votes are tallied in this election, brokers would be well-advised to ratchet up the lobbying a notch or two.

David Gambrill, Editor david@canadianunderwriter.ca