Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 07

February/March 2019// Canadian Government Executive / 13 Disruption government officials and respected re- searchers, and follows extensive consulta- tions with thought leaders and doers. It is aimed at helping policy-makers identify potential future policy directions to ad- dress a range of emerging trends. Officials from the federal government and seven provinces also provided their perspectives about what’s going to matter next and how policy-makers can best get prepared. The central message from those consul- tations was that disruption can be both positive and negative. While the contribu- tors to this report have focused in particu- lar on technological change – including its implications on the workforce and on the public services Canadians depend on – their preoccupations for Canada’s future extend beyond planning for disruption to include the impacts of shifting social val- ues, demographics and climate change. Simply put, there are three ways to deal with what has come to be known as dis- ruption: let it do its own thing and adjust accordingly; implement policies intended to hold back the tide; or use policy levers to manage change for competitive advan- tage and harm-mitigation. Under the first approach, the damage to individuals or groups (for example, residents of rust belt areas, fossil fuel-pro- ducing regions, rural areas, or those with little education) is difficult to bear. And in the internet age, those individuals can be swept easily into a reactionary force fight- ing the tide of change. Smooth adjustments are hard. During the farm-to-factory ad- justment of the 19th century, anti-market philosophies arose in response – the most notable being the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Communism exacted a heavy toll in the 20th century, as did fas- cism, which arose in response to political, economic and social pressures of 1920s and 1930s Europe. When such extreme ideolo- gies arise, it is a sure sign that enlightened public policy leadership has failed. Under the second approach, long-term national benefit is damaged for short-term advantage. Freedom itself – political au- tonomy, economic agency – is sometimes the victim. This suppression of expecta- tions also can lead to greater shocks to the system later. Creative destruction cannot be denied without profound costs. At best, it can be channeled. The third approach is the moderate course. It has enjoyed the greatest success, albeit by different measures in different circumstances by a varied array of social democrats, liberals and conservatives. The moderate course employs different blends of market reliance and political interven- tion to set free, to channel or to mitigate the process of change. The Canada Next Series For example, the Munk School’s Daniel Munro suggests in his article three ways to address issues arising from artificial intel- ligence, including a laissez-faire approach to allow AI “to develop and diffuse with- out limit” and a precautionary approach to restrain development until “risks are better understood and capacity to manage them is in place.” Between these bookends is “a case- and context-sensitive risk man- agement approach.” This, he argues, al- lows space for “AI technologies and appli- cations to develop while monitoring and managing possible risks as they emerge in specific applications.” Other writers in this report have sought to find the same sweet spot: to put for- future, but any government is smart to try. In addition to helping the government deliver on its current policy priorities, policy-makers need to plan for the medi- um and longer term, including developing policies and advice to address emerging trends that will affect the future well-be- ing of Canadians. Meanwhile, Canada’s political parties and non-political public servants also consult more widely than they used to as each learns, sorts and synthesizes in order to govern well. In the digital age, nobody holds a monopoly on understanding the future. Planning in a period of extreme change is humbling and necessary work. It is with similar humility that the Public Policy Forum is releasing “Canada Next: 12 Ways to Get Ahead of Disruption” as part of Canada’s planning conversation. Three Ways to Face Disruption This report is composed of papers by pro- fessors, think tank heads, former senior