Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 03

14 / Canadian Government Executive // May/June 2018 T he federal government has dra- matically increased the scope and scale of its consultations and engagement in the past two years. The goal is to make it easier for pub- lic servants, citizens and stakeholders to work together to solve common problems and improve outcomes. My team at the Privy Council Office mon- itors the success and impact of these efforts. We continually strive to learn, improve, and address barriers to good engagement. We track the progress of engagement so we can report meaningfully on the results, and share what we learn with others. Why does it matter? Good engagement in the context of developing public policy is a way to regain public trust. But how? In theory, broadening the types of evi- dence considered improves the likelihood that the resulting program, policy or ser- vice will reflect the needs of the people it serves. The relationships needed to imple- ment policies can form during these times. What keeps me up at night is that bad engagement does the exact opposite of good engagement. Insincere engagement breaks relationships and erodes trust. It increases polarization and isolation, which can lead to extreme behavior. It can also reduce buy-in when it comes time to implement. Engagement done poorly fur- ther separates people in various sectors and ultimately undermines the goal of achieving shared societal outcomes. In opening up our engagement pro- cesses to more people, we have seen both good and bad examples of engagement. Despite good intentions, lack of time, re- sources, and capacity have sometimes cre- ated hurdles too great to overcome. But challenges can lead to great innovations. I profile three examples below. Innovation #1: Embedding transparency in traditional processes The conventional legislative process of- fers many opportunities for citizens and stakeholders to provide input. A good ex- ample of this is the consultation process around Bill C-59 – An Act respecting na- tional security matters, which employed exceptional levels of transparency and engagement. By nature of the work itself, discussions on national security needed to balance sensitivity of the topic against providing Canadians with an opportunity to provide views on this important issue. The ap- proach taken embodied the government’s desire to be transparent. By way of a ministerial mandate letter – published online for the first time – the Minister of Public Safety was given the task of repealing the existing national security legislation and introducing new legislation. As a starting point, Public Safety Canada published a paper intend- ed to prompt discussion about Canada’s national security framework. This was followed by a “what we heard report” that summarized the comments received. All the consultation feedback was then pub- lished on open.Canada.ca – a best practice that others are now emulating. The legislative process is designed to sup- port transparency throughout. In the case of Bill C-59, the full text of the draft legislation, tabled in June 2017, is available on the Parlia- ment of Canada website. After public debate in the House of Commons, the Act was re- ferred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for clause-by- clause consideration, which citizens can watch online. Experts and stakeholders, including public officials, were invited to provide written or verbal statements to the Committee. Meeting dates are publicized, and often available via live webcast. Canadians can follow the legislation as it moves to second reading, and eventually, possible adoption of the Bill. A clear thread can be seen from the start of the consulta- tion process through the changes along the way resulting from feedback provided by hundreds of interested Canadians. Innovation #2: Engaging to better understand the problem and priorities Engaging early and often is key to success. But exactly when and where do you start? Should government officials draft a paper or policy to which people can respond? Or Public Engagement Innovations in Public Engagement By Laura Wesley