Speaking Notes for Minister Stewart: Government Relations Institute of Canada Conference
Remarks by
The Honourable Jane Stewart
Minister of Human Resources Development Canada
at the
Government Relations Institute of Canada Conference
Ottawa
January 30 , 2003
Check against delivery
It's a great idea bringing the two organizations together, and even better asking me to come. I love doing content work, I adore public policy and the process of how we connect with one another and how we think about democracy and improving democracy.
This is a wonderful opportunity to share with you a few of my ideas. This morning, I was thinking about what I was going to say and I asked myself, is there a science here? Maybe you have figured out the variables. I can think of some of the variables that are associated with developing public policy, lobbying, the relationship between government and stakeholders, the kind of public policy you're talking about, the kind of government you're dealing with, the sort of individual you are making a partnership with. I'm not sure the quantities of each of those variables or the equations; you may have worked it down to a finer science than I can.
I've been asked to give you an insider's view of how associations can participate in public policy. When it comes to building public policy, it really is as much an art as it is a science. I was trying to think of what kind of context or what kind of model to focus my discussion on. Maybe the easiest way is to start at the beginning and sort of work through the processes I have experienced. The best I can do is give you some examples of what I think works. And maybe, if I've got the courage, to tell you what doesn't work, because there are a few times when I've been lobbied and it just hasn't worked very well at all.
If we start at the very beginning and again, the title of the discussion was an insider's view on how associations can participate in public policy. It really goes back to the very beginning. So, what is the piece of public policy that you want to work on? You've got your associations, your organizations, your members and, at that stage, it doesn't have very much to do with me as a minister. It doesn't even have much to do with government. Because, believe it or not, governments really don't want to do to people, they want to do for people. They want to do for citizens. We want to give Canadian citizens what they want and what they need.
The idea is that Canadians tell us what that is. Associations need at that point to use their members. I don't want to respond to an association, I want to respond to your members. The way in which you use your membership to help create interest or form the piece of public policy that you want to move ahead is essential. It is an essential piece in an effective relationship. Those association members also have the opportunity, if they think about it, to influence their neighbours, their community members. Doing it at the local level is critically important. It's very important for the kind of government that we operate because the Members of Parliament have a significant role and intervene considerably through the caucus process with the government, with us.
As a Member of Parliament - one of the greatest stories that I think about concerning public policy and its development and the role that associations can play - is in the context of the land mines initiatives. Back at home, in the riding of Brant, there were really three organizations. Some of them, you wouldn't think as being very sophisticated. For example, there were the local high schools, the United Nations Clubs, the Project Plow Shares and the University Women's Association. Individually, they came to me as the Member of Parliament and said they were looking at this land-mine story and they thought that there was something there. They told me that I should be considering banning these things and I thought, yes, that's really interesting. By the time three of them had come to me, I thought this was something I better pay some attention to.
At the same time, those groups were talking to other Members of Parliament and there would be a little bit of discussion in the caucus. Because some of us had heard it back home, you'd make the comment, and it builds up from the bottom. I ended up on the way to Japan to a parliamentary conference, stopping in Cambodia specifically to take a look at what land mines were doing in that country, where there'd been civil strife. I came back, talked to David Collenette who was Minister of Defence at the time, talked to the Defence Generals, talked about it in caucus, other members as well because they'd been hearing it again back home. After making some statements in the House, and David was paying some attention to it knowing there was some increasing interest, I said David, just do the right thing.
It goes on from that, and it's a great story when you're talking to kids, particularly in schools to explain to them how the democratic process can work and how they can play a role. It was these local organizations across the country that made it happen. In our kind of government, that local connection, with individuals, within a community talking to the Member of Parliament and saying this is important, really moves the agenda. Another example, while I was on the finance committee, the issues of banks arose and what it was that they were going to regulate. They wanted to get into the insurance business, I mean car insurance. They figured, their experience with an old regime was, things are in place for this to happen and so it's just going to naturally happen.
So, that's moving along on the one hand, but the insurance companies are going gangbusters at the local level on the other hand, right? The Members of Parliament are hearing from their local insurance brokers and agents and thinking they better pay attention to this. By the time the bankers had invited the finance committee to come to the ivory tower, they're telling us what's going to happen and we're all laughing saying I don't think so because within our caucus everybody was saying this is an issue that we're not ready for.
There was a real transformation that had to happen within and among the banks to understand how to work with us, what our thinking was and almost to restart their process. They've done a very good job at engaging their local bank managers again but, that's something that they missed out on and didn't make the change with the administration and with our way of managing. In the context of public policy, my message is think locally. We very much respond to individuals. We want to do for people, not to people. We want it to come from Canadians and that's what I think makes for movement and progress on a piece of public policy.
In that same vein, there are so many things for us to choose from. I'm now chairing the Economic Committee of Cabinet, and there is so much that we could do. How do you make the choices, how do you pick those things? Well, you want to deliver what Canadians want now and as much as the newspapers will keep saying, that the government has to show vision and you've got to be out there. To an extent that's true, but one of the big messages that I've learned is you don't ever want to be too far ahead of the people. You get too far ahead of Canadians and you're left, maybe doing something that in the long run is the right thing to do and it's going to be very important but it makes process in a very unstable fashion. We want to be close to Canadians, not too far ahead, showing some leadership.
Sometimes, you want to even be a little bit behind them, depending on what the issue is. But, that means galvanizing public opinion, getting Canadians, more than even just your association, but attaching yourselves to as broad a public group as you possibly can. You as associations can do that, you can facilitate that. It's much easier, when issues come to government and there is some formed consensus. I saw that one of your workshops this morning was about coalition building. I would hope that the folks presenting it were encouraging that kind of a coalition. If they were, I would support it very strongly. It's almost like throwing papers up in the air and pick some as they're coming down. Well, you pick the bigger ones. Where is there a meeting of the minds? Where is there something with substance and is it large enough to get a grasp on?
In that context, I think of our work on the children's agenda. Are children important? Absolutely. Is the question of child poverty important? Absolutely. But, the stakeholders kept coming individually, we'd get the childcare people coming, we'd get the youth people coming, we'd get educators coming, we'd get those who believe that supporting parents and giving them the support that they need. They were coming individually and as, a government, you just blow them off since it's, well, one little thing.
But, once they came together and said we are here about our youngest citizens, about children, you can't turn away from that. And, what came out of it? The development of the National Children's Agenda and then, after that, some decisions about where we begin. Some of the groups that had said, okay, I'm going to give up my individual push to join this larger coalition, I've got to wait my turn because we're going to start with the early years. The Boys and Girls Clubs, the youth organizations said okay, we'll see some progress here but let's get it right at the first. But, they came together and agreed amongst themselves that this should be a priority, a national priority and we were going to work as a common voice so that government couldn't just blow us off one by one.
Back to that coalition building, tremendously important and hugely valuable for the government, because if it's not done, we have to do it or we're making choices and making somebody mad now and trying to explain the relationship. But, the earlier that gets done, the better it is done outside of government, the faster it moves inside government. Again this idea, sometimes it seems it takes forever, but I am a firm believer that the more time you spend on the front end, the easier it is once you get moving. You're not having to go back and revisit things or bring people on board. That coalition building is also emphasized in the progress and the dynamics that have changed in the context of the pre-budget consultations. The first year we did those things, I was on the Finance Committee, individuals, organizations, came as representatives.
The second year, the health associations and organizations, they thought first, they came together and started to partner more effectively and make a single brief, make some choices amongst themselves about what their priorities were and present it in a combined fashion; hugely powerful, very effective.
And so, when you are trying to identify pieces of public policy for attention, you've got to build them up to something. The other thing that's always useful is to connect a particular piece of public policy with another. Look at where else you might find a relationship. We're looking at Kyoto now. The numbers of attachments to that big piece of public policy, climate change, the environment, are huge. Same if you're talking about health. But make those connections. It makes it much easier when the papers are coming down to pick a big one and say this is where we should turn our attention.
Another thing to remember is governments want to deliver on what they say they're going to do. So, it is important not only to attach to Members of Parliament but to understand the political process and to understand how it builds up within parties. As party organizations at the local level develop their individual recommendations to their own party, there needs to be attachments there. We listen to our party members and the other parties do as well, working something through the system so that it's there, it's presented as part of the political platform. The bigger it is in the context of common importance within a party and its local level, the more likely it is to make it up the food chain if you want to call it that way.
If you're then ultimately talking to a party that's in government, you've got to look at the other processes within the governance structure: the Speech from the Throne and the Budget. Look at what's being written there, try and work to get your words in those documents because again, governments want to deliver on what they promise and those promises are housed in party platforms, in the Speeches from the Throne, and the Budgets.
Another thing to appreciate is we really do want to build and implement public policy that's sustainable and that happens over time. It isn't very often a big bang. Sometimes, you get a big investment in something and that's going to hold. But usually, good public policy is built in layers. You get a piece of it, you test it out, it works, you continue to invest, you continue to add on to it. So you've got to be prepared to be there for the long haul. It's not always a quick process. And, within your work in associations or if you're a lobbyist, letting people know. It's going to come in steps and stages, it's tremendously important.
If I look at the children's agenda, we finally got everybody together, we got the National Children's Agenda written. Then, we decided we're going to focus on the early years, make some interventions and some changes to legislation like the doubling of parental benefits. But, we learned some lessons there. It's the right thing to do but, we could have done a better job at the front end, back and forth. Sometimes, we make incremental changes. But, that's predicated on the fact that the changes we make need to be sustainable. You don't want to start something and then pull it away. That means, being prepared to take some time and build with the government, build on the identified investments, and then help directly when the next logical opportunities arise.
If I go to the Innovation agenda, we spent a year and a half, talking and identifying how the partner should be and encouraging those partners to stretch out and broaden their consultation. By the time we got to the National Summit on Innovation and Learning in November, I couldn't believe the commonality of commitment and advice that came at least from the partners that we had been working with. It was a tremendous exposé to see how associations and organizations can work with government in the early goings when it comes to building public policy. And for me again, it comes back to that belief that if you're prepared to put the time in and make the effort in the early going and then to stick with it, chances of success are very good.
Once you get the momentum, not to overwork the Children's Agenda, but once you get there, then all of a sudden you get the government coming back to the programs, the National Child Benefit. It's starting to work. We're getting data to prove that it's successful. We've got some more money, let's put it there. We signed the Early Childhood Development Agreement with the provinces. We're starting to see we can work together in an effective, accountability regime that makes sense to Canadians. We've got some more money, let's focus on a particular aspect of that agreement, childcare and move ahead. Once you get the foundations right, it's amazing how fast the wheels turn.
There are some other aspects to this that are worth talking about as well. Once you have a particular area of public policy identified and have Canadians agreeing that this is the place where we should make investments, the question becomes: How do we work together in terms of getting the programs, the services or whatever it is that's going to help implement the public policy? I had some fascinating experiences when I was Minister of Indian Affairs. I truly felt, that I had to work with Aboriginal people if I was going to deliver what they wanted. And there was a huge push back from the center because the strategy was always well, we figured it out, we decided at cabinet, and then we went and talked to people.
I just don't buy that approach. I think that there are ways for us to work together, recognizing the issues of privacy, keeping the information confidential but effectively working together and working things through to make sure that the implementation strategy and the pieces of the puzzle are the right ones. In the context of Indian Affairs, we set up working groups, with the AFN, with the Inuit Association, with the Metis National Council and others. One area, I think about, is in developing the claims, Indian Claim Commission and moving that in a different direction. The joint working table was tremendously important for us to look at the needs and the opportunities together.
Now out of that, we still maintain our own independence and I said look, no matter what we decide here, I will take that to cabinet but don't assume that that's going to be accepted. It'll come back in some different form you can guarantee. But, at least, I know I'm dealing with a base that you are going to support. They had to do the same thing. If I'm thinking of the AFN, they then go back to their Council of Chiefs and they aren't going to send back the same thing either. But for me, it is a more appropriate way of working.
Another example of that kind of process, while you're in the middle of designing particular parts of the public policy that you want to implement was with the voluntary sector initiative. I don't know if there was anybody here who was part of that but again, the idea from the Privy Council Office that we would set these working tables with the associations and organizations of volunteer sectors themselves before we actually had the policy designed. It was pretty hard for them to get their heads around this.
But once they started doing it, I think the magic of the relationship was unbelievable to us all. And for me, that kind of relationship is far more effective and positive and apt to result in sustainable, implementable public policy than us all working in our own space all the time. It's a challenge, there's no question about it because you can't always deliver. You can spend lots of time coming up with something and then not being able to get an agreement at Cabinet, finding the money or whatever. But the work is there and you can always come back to it.
These are some of the aspects of working together as we identify, move ahead and deliver for Canadians on the piece of public policy that are important to them. But in fact, it doesn't end there. When it actually comes to the implementation of this work, that's where the relationship strengthens even more.
In my department, Human Resources Development Canada, we're going through some amazing transformation where in the past it was the government that delivered all the services. In fact, we have thousands of contractual relationships with third parties, with organizations with associations, actually delivering the goods. I can't profess to say that we have the management science of that kind of relationship perfectly designed, far from it.
I'm hoping that in terms of public policy administration, there are great thinkers who are working on this and going to give us some advice on how we build those relationships so that associations and local groups can implement the program in their own communities. And that we can have the accountability and controllership regimes required in a public system. Because for me, it is an important piece of the puzzle.
It makes sense to have organizations in communities delivering these services, ensuring that they have the flexibility in those programs to deliver what's needed. It's a challenge though, building systems, building services that are flexible enough, yet accountable enough for Canadians. Sometimes, the two seem at odds, flexibility and accountability. But, there is a balance to be found there and we have to find it, so that the relationship with associations in the implementation of good public policy can continue, can grow and thrive.
I hope this takes you through the process a bit with just a few examples of what I have found to work. But, fundamentally, it really all does come back to your view on democracy and what government is really all about. It can never be this thing that is so far away that people don't understand it. It can never be an entity, well, it can be and we've seen it happen in the past but people don't support that approach. They don't want to be done to. They want to be done with, they want to be done for. Associations have a huge role at connecting that public energy, and funnelling that public interest through to governments.
There are a few things that I would like to say to you, as a person, who has the honour and the benefit of working at the Parliament Buildings. As lobbyists, when you come to see us, don't come alone. I really don't want to see you, I want to see who you're representing. I want to hear from them, what is important to them. You do your work to provide them the avenue or take the time that they don't have to put the piece together but, for heaven's sake, bring them. Bring the people that you are representing. As I say, I'm not here to respond to the association, I'm here to respond to the members of the association.
And another thing, be advised, threats don't work. It's not an arrow that you want to have in your quiver. Recently, I had the experience of going to one of our roundtables and was accosted by a government relations professional who was immediately in my face saying I've got to have five minutes with you. I said, okay, go ahead, you've got it. It was an offense to me that this person was so imposing. There were lots of people but, he said that he had to have five minutes with me because he had something to say that was more important than everybody else in the room. He mentioned how the group was very important to me and if I didn't meet with them or whatever, you know, it was all in a threatening tone.
So what do I do? I went back to my office and asked my staff, if they knew this person? I don't ever want to see him again or anybody he's representing. I try to be as open and available as possible. If people need or want to see you, you do your best to get out there because that's the conversation that needs to happen. But don't use threats. I don't think it's an effective tool and it's one that should be cast off. You probably all have figured that out, but there it was right in front of me just a few months ago.
In closing, I would say, I've experienced a number of things that I believe do work. It's about building momentum and before you even come to government, knowing that you've got Canadians with you. It's about having the research. Research is tremendously important and so is the value of polls and even working together on establishing polls that will answer the questions that we need jointly.
When I think of the Children's Agenda again, what really helped move that agenda was the data on the early years. The research that had been prepared and really unequivocally said that, the years from prenatal to five or six are fundamental in the success of the individuals over the course of our lives. It is about building coalitions with your natural partners and also to challenge yourself to look at partners you may not have considered or thought of in the past.
In some cases, it may involve people you see on the other side of the coin, on the other side of the issue. It is about being prepared to take some time at this, to spend time at the front end and I can guarantee you, the more time you spend at the front end, the faster the wheels start to turn. It's about continuing to help build, the understanding, the information and the opportunity in the areas of accountability and public controllership.
Because in the public sector, it's very different from the private sector. Canadian taxpayers are not like shareholders. They can't take their money some place else. They keep paying and thankfully, contributing. But, we have to be able to tell them at any time they ask, where their money is going, how it's being used and what the outcomes are.
It means being able to assure confidence, and security of information. When you're in a relationship, you've got to know when that relationship is one of confidence and when what you're working on is developing, not a fait accompli. The last thing that will continue to encourage a relationship is somebody who has been at the table of confidence, going outside and making an issue of it.
So, there are ways of working effectively together, getting positive outcomes. I've seen them in my own time and I believe in those ways. To continue to develop and to evolve. I can't tell you how important opportunities like this are for us to get together and talk. To hear from experts in your own field and from those on the outside who are the beneficiaries of your good practices and your hard work.
Thanks very much for including me.
(applause).