Draft Guiding Principles for Consultations and Public Engagement

français

The Government of Canada recognizes that meaningful public engagement is an important part of an effective, open, and transparent government. We are committed to engaging the public and stakeholders in the development of our priorities, policies, programs and services.

Open engagement and constructive dialogue with the public results in better programs and services for Canadians. While engagement takes many forms—from ongoing collaboration with groups, to broad public consultation on social issues—we commit to demonstrating the following principles across our public engagement:

Open and Transparent

We communicate with Canadians about engagement opportunities that may be of interest to them. We let Canadians know what happened with their input and how it influenced decisions.

Meaningful and Relevant

We bring impacted and interested Canadians to the table to talk about issues that matter to them. We are clear about what is up for discussion and the scope of change possible.

Accessible and Inclusive

We include a range of views and perspectives that is representative of stakeholders and target audiences. We reduce barriers to participation, whether physical, cultural, geographical, linguistic, digital, or other.

Accountable and Responsive

We commit to accurately reflecting what we hear from citizens. We report back to participants to explain our decisions including how their input was used.

Progressive and Adaptable

We commit to continuous learning and adaptation in our public engagement, and to promoting a culture of engagement, consultation, and collaboration across the public service. We build on our successes, learn from our failures, and share our experiences.

---

As a participant…
As a stakeholder organization…
As a citizen…
As a decision-maker…

Do these principles resonate? Anything missing? Redundant?

What do they look like in practice?

What would you need to see to know that these principles were followed?

Rough Notes

Meaningful and Relevant

We bring impacted and interested Canadians to the table to talk about issues that matter to them. We are clear about what is up for discussion and the scope of change possible.

• First half resonates but not the second half

• Do you give people a platform to discuss issues? Or do you allow them to discuss their own issues

• Need to allow them the opportunity to voice their opinions

• Limiting the scope of change possible – didn’t necessarily resonate

• If the solutions surpass the scope, may need to rethink the scope and the range of what’s possible

• Acknowledge limitations – people are not monsters – acknowledge imperfections – don’t be afraid to show weakness/that you don’t know

• Explain the why not just the what

• Can’t do all the work for them – implementation will be huge if people add to the work

• Scope of change possible – some disagreement

• Scope can mean multiple things – legislative/human rights – concept is useful but wording can be nuanced – the words not the ideas

• Go to the community not have them come to you

• Who decides the scope?

• How do you deliver and demonstrate that people have been heard?

General Comments

• Need to be more user centric; what is the problem – flip the concept around

• How can you get to people that you don’t normally talk to (90%)

Open and Transparent

• Language – struck the group as a traditional gov framework a top down approach

• How can be shift to citizen driven

• “We”: citizens and government

• Looks like – more local driven dialogue; have a mix of local and away

• Marketing language of bringing people together – go to where people are

• Allow local projects to emerge

• What can you be driving at a local level; instead of taking them away

• New voices at the table – how to get there?

• Strive for broader input

Accessible and Inclusive

• Cost-benefit analysis – limited set of resources – how do you maximize?

• In N.B. high rates of illiteracy so how do you make it more inclusive? Do you need a mixed approach to engagement

• How do you balance inputs from all concerned; how do you decide which are more important than others

• Need to understand demographic profile – need good information

• Ombudsman or advisory board to provide oversight or feedback into whole process?

• How do you know it’s inclusive? Need for centralized body that’s intentional in standardizing for public engagement

• Is there a need for a Centre of Expertise

Open and Transparent

• Building on engagement – feeling the way through the process under different circumstances

• Start small and build capacity using external consultants – sweet spot on over- engagement vs learning on past experiences

• Fluidity and continuity are needed; there are ebbs and flows – how do find past expertise and help the new teams? Is there a way to always move forward

Open and Transparent

• Resonated

• Let people know about the event and then let them know about the decisions

• See more examples at the muni level gets harder at prov and fed levels

o E.g. Zoning bylaws

• Barrier of info overload – how do we make it important and meaningful

• What is the role of the media – can it help advertise/promote events?

• In practice – Dieppe example; education plan in N.B.; Imagination Stations

• Not always seeing is the end result and how it impacted decisions

• Civic engagement should go up; is this a way to measure success?

• Having decisions traced back to original comments as much as possible – how can you make the links back – link input to decisions

• Leverage technology – twitter, e.g. and be able to use it creatively

• Can it have the same level of voice as someone in the room?

General

• Found some repetition

• How will this session know that the feedback today will be heard?

• Muni discussions don’t get vetted through party politics – not much political posturing

• Authenticity of response is not going down if filtered through party politics

---

[Opportunities and Enablers](Opportunities and Enablers)