Consensus-Building
#8Key Findings
Canada receives high rankings (rank 8) in the category of consensus-building.
While numerous private sector actors, NGOs and academics provide policy analysis, a small group of “hyper-experts” has a more significant impact.
Business associations are often consulted by the government, but trade unions rarely are. Other CSOs often engage in policy dialogue, but their impact on decision-making is unclear. Environmental groups often have antagonistic relationships with the government, leading to court fights.
Access to government documents in Canada is limited, as freedom of information laws have many exceptions, and document provision is slow. Government websites provide useful information on policies and services, with performance dashboards having improved transparency.
While numerous private sector actors, NGOs and academics provide policy analysis, a small group of “hyper-experts” has a more significant impact.
Business associations are often consulted by the government, but trade unions rarely are. Other CSOs often engage in policy dialogue, but their impact on decision-making is unclear. Environmental groups often have antagonistic relationships with the government, leading to court fights.
Access to government documents in Canada is limited, as freedom of information laws have many exceptions, and document provision is slow. Government websites provide useful information on policies and services, with performance dashboards having improved transparency.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
Many opportunities exist for Canadian governments to harness expertise through their own research activities, the university system, and the private sector.
The provision of policy advice is a critical activity in the policymaking process, attracting greater attention from policy scholars as policy advisory systems have become increasingly complex. More and more actors are involved in providing policy-relevant knowledge and analysis to governments. Multiple communities of scholars and experts have developed into intricate policy ecosystems, where public servants have lost any monopoly they might once have had. They are now flanked by private sector actors, NGOs, and academics in the production of knowledge aimed at or expected to benefit decision-makers.
Within these policy advisory systems, various sets of actors have distinct roles, values, and approaches to their policy activities. They conduct different types of analysis and provide diverse forms of advice. This holds true for groups such as consultants, academics, think tanks, policy laboratories, NGOs, interest groups, and many other organizations and individuals who offer counsel on policy problems and solutions.
Determining what these groups do and how successful they are in these advisory activities is a major research agenda in the field. It was often thought in the past that the location of advisers affected both the kinds of advice they provided and its influence. Especially in Westminster-type parliamentary systems, key “inside” actors in government – such as internal policy analysts, senior civil servants, and others – were thought to exercise disproportionate policy influence over policy decisions and content. Thinking has changed on this subject, however, as evidence has mounted concerning the increasingly key role played by outside actors – from think tanks to interest groups, NGOs, and others – in the provision of policy advice.
The relationships of influence and activity between governments and external actors (public, private, and non-governmental) in the policy process are complex. Older work often argued that academic research at best had an indirect “environmental” or “enlightenment” effect on policymakers. However, more recent work on Canada has argued that previous studies misconstrued the role of outside policy advice because they surveyed “average” levels of input and, in so doing, missed the significant impact of a small elite group of “hyper-experts” within an already small group of “super-users” interacting on a constant basis with government policymakers (Migone et al. 2022).
Citations:
Migone, Andrea, Michael R. McGregor, Kathy Brock, and Michael Howlett. 2022. “Super-Users and Hyper-Experts in the Provision of Policy Advice: Evidence from a Survey of Canadian Academics.” European Policy Analysis 8 (4): 370–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1139
The provision of policy advice is a critical activity in the policymaking process, attracting greater attention from policy scholars as policy advisory systems have become increasingly complex. More and more actors are involved in providing policy-relevant knowledge and analysis to governments. Multiple communities of scholars and experts have developed into intricate policy ecosystems, where public servants have lost any monopoly they might once have had. They are now flanked by private sector actors, NGOs, and academics in the production of knowledge aimed at or expected to benefit decision-makers.
Within these policy advisory systems, various sets of actors have distinct roles, values, and approaches to their policy activities. They conduct different types of analysis and provide diverse forms of advice. This holds true for groups such as consultants, academics, think tanks, policy laboratories, NGOs, interest groups, and many other organizations and individuals who offer counsel on policy problems and solutions.
Determining what these groups do and how successful they are in these advisory activities is a major research agenda in the field. It was often thought in the past that the location of advisers affected both the kinds of advice they provided and its influence. Especially in Westminster-type parliamentary systems, key “inside” actors in government – such as internal policy analysts, senior civil servants, and others – were thought to exercise disproportionate policy influence over policy decisions and content. Thinking has changed on this subject, however, as evidence has mounted concerning the increasingly key role played by outside actors – from think tanks to interest groups, NGOs, and others – in the provision of policy advice.
The relationships of influence and activity between governments and external actors (public, private, and non-governmental) in the policy process are complex. Older work often argued that academic research at best had an indirect “environmental” or “enlightenment” effect on policymakers. However, more recent work on Canada has argued that previous studies misconstrued the role of outside policy advice because they surveyed “average” levels of input and, in so doing, missed the significant impact of a small elite group of “hyper-experts” within an already small group of “super-users” interacting on a constant basis with government policymakers (Migone et al. 2022).
Citations:
Migone, Andrea, Michael R. McGregor, Kathy Brock, and Michael Howlett. 2022. “Super-Users and Hyper-Experts in the Provision of Policy Advice: Evidence from a Survey of Canadian Academics.” European Policy Analysis 8 (4): 370–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1139
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
These two should be separated. Business associations are often consulted by Canadian governments. Trade unions are rarely consulted, if ever, outside of policies affecting training and worker education.
Canadian business associations are highly fragmented compared to those in most other industrialized nations, although they are similar to the disaggregated landscape of the United States. Representation is divided among various general business associations covering broad sections of the economy. For example, the Business Council on National Issues and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives represent large corporations; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business represents small businesses; and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce represents a wide range of businesses organized into local chambers. In the manufacturing sector, the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association has merged into Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. At a more specific level, numerous trade associations represent other industrial sectors, individual industries, and industry sub-segments. This extensive overlap makes it difficult to determine exactly which organizations are responsible for what functions, posing a challenge for Canadian governments trying to devise a coherent industrial strategy in consultation with business interests.
Trade associations perform five main functions in policymaking: (i) monitoring political developments relevant to the association’s members, including policy proposals, regulations, legislation, appointments, and the emergence of new issues; (ii) direct lobbying of proximate policymakers, involving personal contacts and representations before various government agencies at home and abroad; (iii) indirect lobbying – affecting policy indirectly by attempting to shape public opinion through media relations, advocacy advertising, public relations activities, etc.; (iv) building alliances with other groups to broaden the base of influence; and (v) research and policy analysis to provide a solid basis for advocacy.
In addition, trade associations can play an important role in policy implementation, such as administering product standards and labeling regulations. These political functions are easier to perform when an association’s membership is relatively homogenous and drawn from a single industry or business segment. In this context, members’ interests are more coherent and united, allowing for clear and forceful advocacy. Broader-based groups, on the other hand, must make policy compromises to accommodate a more diverse membership, which can attenuate their voices. However, broad-based groups have the advantage of representing a wider sector of the economy, making their input harder for policymakers to ignore (Stritch 2007 and 2018).
Labor today tends to intervene in the policy process at a general and political level, rather than a bureaucratic and specific one, and conducts its policy analysis activities accordingly. Between elections, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) is closely engaged with the parliamentary process, producing an annual pre-budget brief to the Standing Committee on Finance and frequently appearing before parliamentary committees considering legislation or holding general policy reviews. Some affiliates also participate in these processes. Engagement with ministers and public servants is less frequent but not uncommon. The CLC usually has ongoing contact with the ministers of labor and of human resources development (now human resources and skills development) regarding issues of worker training, workplace issues (including labor issues in the federal jurisdiction), and unemployment insurance. These relations tend to wax and wane depending on personal relationships between ministers and labor leadership.
On occasion, the depth of engagement has been considerable, particularly concerning training issues. In a handful of industries – notably steel and electronic products manufacturing – extensive training and adjustment programs were developed and delivered jointly by unions and employers in the early 1990s with government financial support. Despite the general demise of training boards, broad planning for labor needs continues today through bipartite national sector councils.
In addition, the autoworkers were heavily engaged with the government and business during the Canada – United States – Mexico free trade negotiations. However, that engagement tends to be sector specific and issue dependent.
Ultimately, labor engagement in social bargaining with employers and governments depends on the willingness of governments to promote such arrangements despite employer indifference or hostility. This willingness has rarely been forthcoming (Jackson and Baldwin 2007).
Citations:
Stritch, Andrew. 2007. “Business Associations and Policy Analysis in Canada.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 242–59. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stritch, Andrew. 2018. “Policy Analytical Capacity and Canadian Business Associations.” In Policy Analysis in Canada, 297–317. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447334910.003.0014
Jackson, Andrew, and Bob Baldwin. 2007. “Policy Analysis by the Labour Movement in a Hostile Environment.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 260-72. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Canadian business associations are highly fragmented compared to those in most other industrialized nations, although they are similar to the disaggregated landscape of the United States. Representation is divided among various general business associations covering broad sections of the economy. For example, the Business Council on National Issues and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives represent large corporations; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business represents small businesses; and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce represents a wide range of businesses organized into local chambers. In the manufacturing sector, the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association has merged into Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. At a more specific level, numerous trade associations represent other industrial sectors, individual industries, and industry sub-segments. This extensive overlap makes it difficult to determine exactly which organizations are responsible for what functions, posing a challenge for Canadian governments trying to devise a coherent industrial strategy in consultation with business interests.
Trade associations perform five main functions in policymaking: (i) monitoring political developments relevant to the association’s members, including policy proposals, regulations, legislation, appointments, and the emergence of new issues; (ii) direct lobbying of proximate policymakers, involving personal contacts and representations before various government agencies at home and abroad; (iii) indirect lobbying – affecting policy indirectly by attempting to shape public opinion through media relations, advocacy advertising, public relations activities, etc.; (iv) building alliances with other groups to broaden the base of influence; and (v) research and policy analysis to provide a solid basis for advocacy.
In addition, trade associations can play an important role in policy implementation, such as administering product standards and labeling regulations. These political functions are easier to perform when an association’s membership is relatively homogenous and drawn from a single industry or business segment. In this context, members’ interests are more coherent and united, allowing for clear and forceful advocacy. Broader-based groups, on the other hand, must make policy compromises to accommodate a more diverse membership, which can attenuate their voices. However, broad-based groups have the advantage of representing a wider sector of the economy, making their input harder for policymakers to ignore (Stritch 2007 and 2018).
Labor today tends to intervene in the policy process at a general and political level, rather than a bureaucratic and specific one, and conducts its policy analysis activities accordingly. Between elections, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) is closely engaged with the parliamentary process, producing an annual pre-budget brief to the Standing Committee on Finance and frequently appearing before parliamentary committees considering legislation or holding general policy reviews. Some affiliates also participate in these processes. Engagement with ministers and public servants is less frequent but not uncommon. The CLC usually has ongoing contact with the ministers of labor and of human resources development (now human resources and skills development) regarding issues of worker training, workplace issues (including labor issues in the federal jurisdiction), and unemployment insurance. These relations tend to wax and wane depending on personal relationships between ministers and labor leadership.
On occasion, the depth of engagement has been considerable, particularly concerning training issues. In a handful of industries – notably steel and electronic products manufacturing – extensive training and adjustment programs were developed and delivered jointly by unions and employers in the early 1990s with government financial support. Despite the general demise of training boards, broad planning for labor needs continues today through bipartite national sector councils.
In addition, the autoworkers were heavily engaged with the government and business during the Canada – United States – Mexico free trade negotiations. However, that engagement tends to be sector specific and issue dependent.
Ultimately, labor engagement in social bargaining with employers and governments depends on the willingness of governments to promote such arrangements despite employer indifference or hostility. This willingness has rarely been forthcoming (Jackson and Baldwin 2007).
Citations:
Stritch, Andrew. 2007. “Business Associations and Policy Analysis in Canada.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 242–59. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stritch, Andrew. 2018. “Policy Analytical Capacity and Canadian Business Associations.” In Policy Analysis in Canada, 297–317. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447334910.003.0014
Jackson, Andrew, and Bob Baldwin. 2007. “Policy Analysis by the Labour Movement in a Hostile Environment.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 260-72. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
CSOs have many opportunities to present briefs to legislative committees and government agencies and are often consulted. However, the impact on government decision-making remains very unclear. In some areas, formal “Councils” exist to facilitate dialogue, but their influence on subsequent legislation is uncertain, as evidenced by the Canadian Council on Social Development, which has been wound down.
At the federal level, other activities include programs like the Social Development Partnerships Program, which funds CSOs and requires CSO-government collaboration in areas concerning families and children. Similarly, the Voluntary Sector Initiative brought together CSOs, government, and stakeholders to strengthen relationships in the non-governmental and charitable sectors.
Other venues, like the National Advisory Council on Poverty, help the government of Canada stay accountable to Canadians for lowering poverty. The Advisory Council advises the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on poverty reduction, reports annually on the progress made toward meeting the poverty reduction targets, engages Canadians in discussions about poverty, and undertakes activities specified by the minister (Phillips and Brock 2003).
The impact of these initiatives on the content of subsequent legislation and policy, however, is not clear.
Citations:
Phillips, Susan D., and Kathy L. Brock. 2003. “In Accordance: Canada’s Voluntary Sector Accord from Idea to Implementation.” In Delicate Dances: Public Policy and the NonProfit Sector, 17–61. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
At the federal level, other activities include programs like the Social Development Partnerships Program, which funds CSOs and requires CSO-government collaboration in areas concerning families and children. Similarly, the Voluntary Sector Initiative brought together CSOs, government, and stakeholders to strengthen relationships in the non-governmental and charitable sectors.
Other venues, like the National Advisory Council on Poverty, help the government of Canada stay accountable to Canadians for lowering poverty. The Advisory Council advises the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on poverty reduction, reports annually on the progress made toward meeting the poverty reduction targets, engages Canadians in discussions about poverty, and undertakes activities specified by the minister (Phillips and Brock 2003).
The impact of these initiatives on the content of subsequent legislation and policy, however, is not clear.
Citations:
Phillips, Susan D., and Kathy L. Brock. 2003. “In Accordance: Canada’s Voluntary Sector Accord from Idea to Implementation.” In Delicate Dances: Public Policy and the NonProfit Sector, 17–61. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
Environmental groups often have a contentious relationship with governments, which they view as being influenced by big businesses, especially environmentally degrading resource companies (Wilson and Boardman 1992). While there are opportunities for presenting briefs, these interactions are frequently antagonistic and have historically resulted in matters being routinely settled in court (Elgie 1993).
Environmental interests are advocated by interest groups or “pressure groups,” which sometimes operate through “peak associations” or overarching networks of various kinds. Members of the public organize these groups to act on their behalf to influence the political agenda of governments. Strategies of pressure groups include lobbying elected political representatives, educational campaigns aimed at influencing politicians and the general public, protests, and “direct action,” where members may engage in non-sanctioned activity.
Some environmental groups focus on general objectives, while others form in response to specific issues or conditions. Some are short-term and issue-specific; others have been active for decades.
Fund-raising mechanisms differ among groups, as do leadership and procedural questions, strategies and objectives.
In the resource and environmental policy sector, environmental groups have the capacity to organize and mobilize resources outside the political arena, subsequently bringing pressure on existing political forces to work toward enhanced environmental protection. Environmental organizations have been particularly successful in their educational activities, which are a fundamental component of policy formation. Many groups form linkages with other groups to address issues with large-scale impacts.
A Canadian success story is the Pulp Pollution Campaign in Vancouver, which was mobilized in the late 1980s by the West Coast Environmental Law Foundation and other groups. It included over 50 environmental and other public interest groups, whose public education and lobbying efforts have effectively tightened pulp pollution regulations in British Columbia.
However, smaller, issue-specific groups are also adept at maneuvering in anticipation of and response to industry edicts and government proclamations. The often local or grassroots composition of environmental groups sends a political message to both politicians and project proponents.
Environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) have several advantages in resource and environmental policymaking that are not enjoyed by more indirect means of representing the public interest.
The use of the media to expand a base of public support is one example. The strategic use of the media by groups such as Greenpeace, for instance, has been especially effective in mobilizing public support for actions such as tanker moratoriums on the West Coast.
Yet environmental organizations, while representing a means by which the public can initiate and influence the policy process, are also limited by several factors. The uncertainty of funding, the temporary and issue-specific nature of many groups, and organizational instability restrict the success of environmental groups in dealing with other established political and economic network actors. Struggles among and within ENGOs have often dissipated activists’ morale and energy and diminished funding and public support.
The lack of direct power and formal access to the policy process, while providing groups with ideological enthusiasm and logistical freedom, means their activities must be self-motivated, adversarial, and often response-driven. Rather than playing a proactive role in the policy process, many public interest groups are typically reactive, responding to specific projects or problems. Furthermore, the consequences of their activity are rarely clear. While there is symbolic and educational value to their activity, the ability of groups to penetrate the corridors of political power and to have a voice in the policy formation or decision-making process remains limited (Hessing et al. 2005).
It is important to note that the government of Canada provides program funding to organizations and individuals focused on environmental goals and the protection of the environment. Under the Impact Assessment Act (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s.1, 75 (1)), there is also an obligation to fund participants in an impact assessment – or in a “possible impact assessment” or in relation to “follow-up” activities required under the act.
Citations:
Wilson, J. 1992. “Green Lobbies: Pressure Groups and Environmental Policy.” In R. Boardman, ed. Canadian Environmental Policy, 109–25. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Elgie, S. 1993. “Environmental Groups and the Courts: 1970-1992.” In G. Thompson, M. L. McConnell, and L. B. Huestis eds. Environmental Law and Business in Canada, 185–224. Aurora: Canada Law Book.
Hessing, Melody, Michael Howlett, and Tracy Summerville. 2005. Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy. 2nd ed. Vancouver: UBC Press.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding.html
Environmental interests are advocated by interest groups or “pressure groups,” which sometimes operate through “peak associations” or overarching networks of various kinds. Members of the public organize these groups to act on their behalf to influence the political agenda of governments. Strategies of pressure groups include lobbying elected political representatives, educational campaigns aimed at influencing politicians and the general public, protests, and “direct action,” where members may engage in non-sanctioned activity.
Some environmental groups focus on general objectives, while others form in response to specific issues or conditions. Some are short-term and issue-specific; others have been active for decades.
Fund-raising mechanisms differ among groups, as do leadership and procedural questions, strategies and objectives.
In the resource and environmental policy sector, environmental groups have the capacity to organize and mobilize resources outside the political arena, subsequently bringing pressure on existing political forces to work toward enhanced environmental protection. Environmental organizations have been particularly successful in their educational activities, which are a fundamental component of policy formation. Many groups form linkages with other groups to address issues with large-scale impacts.
A Canadian success story is the Pulp Pollution Campaign in Vancouver, which was mobilized in the late 1980s by the West Coast Environmental Law Foundation and other groups. It included over 50 environmental and other public interest groups, whose public education and lobbying efforts have effectively tightened pulp pollution regulations in British Columbia.
However, smaller, issue-specific groups are also adept at maneuvering in anticipation of and response to industry edicts and government proclamations. The often local or grassroots composition of environmental groups sends a political message to both politicians and project proponents.
Environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) have several advantages in resource and environmental policymaking that are not enjoyed by more indirect means of representing the public interest.
The use of the media to expand a base of public support is one example. The strategic use of the media by groups such as Greenpeace, for instance, has been especially effective in mobilizing public support for actions such as tanker moratoriums on the West Coast.
Yet environmental organizations, while representing a means by which the public can initiate and influence the policy process, are also limited by several factors. The uncertainty of funding, the temporary and issue-specific nature of many groups, and organizational instability restrict the success of environmental groups in dealing with other established political and economic network actors. Struggles among and within ENGOs have often dissipated activists’ morale and energy and diminished funding and public support.
The lack of direct power and formal access to the policy process, while providing groups with ideological enthusiasm and logistical freedom, means their activities must be self-motivated, adversarial, and often response-driven. Rather than playing a proactive role in the policy process, many public interest groups are typically reactive, responding to specific projects or problems. Furthermore, the consequences of their activity are rarely clear. While there is symbolic and educational value to their activity, the ability of groups to penetrate the corridors of political power and to have a voice in the policy formation or decision-making process remains limited (Hessing et al. 2005).
It is important to note that the government of Canada provides program funding to organizations and individuals focused on environmental goals and the protection of the environment. Under the Impact Assessment Act (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s.1, 75 (1)), there is also an obligation to fund participants in an impact assessment – or in a “possible impact assessment” or in relation to “follow-up” activities required under the act.
Citations:
Wilson, J. 1992. “Green Lobbies: Pressure Groups and Environmental Policy.” In R. Boardman, ed. Canadian Environmental Policy, 109–25. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Elgie, S. 1993. “Environmental Groups and the Courts: 1970-1992.” In G. Thompson, M. L. McConnell, and L. B. Huestis eds. Environmental Law and Business in Canada, 185–224. Aurora: Canada Law Book.
Hessing, Melody, Michael Howlett, and Tracy Summerville. 2005. Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy. 2nd ed. Vancouver: UBC Press.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding.html
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
The default in Canada is that most documents are not available to the public unless requested through freedom of information legislation – which is notably weak – or released by the government for other reasons. The Access to Information Act was intended to augment these releases and allows citizens to request specific government records. However, it is riddled with exceptions and opt-outs, and departments frequently take years to release heavily redacted documents. Information related to government contracts, including the names of suppliers and the value of contracts, is also expected to be made public under a relatively new federal Accountability Act, but reporting is uneven and not standardized.
The Canadian government has recently increased its efforts through various “Open Government” initiatives to provide more data and information to citizens. The Open Government Portal (open.canada.ca), for example, serves as a central hub for accessing a wide range of government data, information, and publications. The portal includes datasets, reports, and other resources that empower citizens to scrutinize government actions.
Government websites, including those at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, offer a wealth of information on policies, services, and initiatives. These online platforms are key resources for citizens seeking information to hold the government accountable. Additionally, some government departments and agencies use performance dashboards to visualize and communicate key metrics related to their activities. These dashboards offer accessible and user-friendly ways for citizens to track government performance (Treasury Board of Canada).
The government regularly releases open datasets covering diverse topics, including demographics, health, the environment, and public finances. These datasets are made available to the public in machine-readable formats, facilitating analysis, research, and innovation. Some agencies have also developed interactive tools and applications that allow citizens to explore and analyze data.
This complements the extensive national system of accounting and reporting managed by Statistics Canada, which is built around the decennial census. The government also publishes detailed information about its budgets, expenditures, and financial plans, and government departments and agencies are required to report on their performance and achievements.
The government also engages in public consultations on various policy issues, allowing citizens to provide input and feedback. Information about these consultations, including discussion papers and reports, is often made publicly available to ensure transparency in the decision-making process.
While these initiatives contribute to a more transparent and accountable government, challenges exist, including concerns about data quality, accessibility, and the need for ongoing improvements in transparency practices (Clarke 2019).
Citations:
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. “Open Government.” http://open.canada.ca/en
Clarke, Amanda. 2019. Opening the Government of Canada: The Federal Bureaucracy in the Digital Age. Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press.
The Canadian government has recently increased its efforts through various “Open Government” initiatives to provide more data and information to citizens. The Open Government Portal (open.canada.ca), for example, serves as a central hub for accessing a wide range of government data, information, and publications. The portal includes datasets, reports, and other resources that empower citizens to scrutinize government actions.
Government websites, including those at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, offer a wealth of information on policies, services, and initiatives. These online platforms are key resources for citizens seeking information to hold the government accountable. Additionally, some government departments and agencies use performance dashboards to visualize and communicate key metrics related to their activities. These dashboards offer accessible and user-friendly ways for citizens to track government performance (Treasury Board of Canada).
The government regularly releases open datasets covering diverse topics, including demographics, health, the environment, and public finances. These datasets are made available to the public in machine-readable formats, facilitating analysis, research, and innovation. Some agencies have also developed interactive tools and applications that allow citizens to explore and analyze data.
This complements the extensive national system of accounting and reporting managed by Statistics Canada, which is built around the decennial census. The government also publishes detailed information about its budgets, expenditures, and financial plans, and government departments and agencies are required to report on their performance and achievements.
The government also engages in public consultations on various policy issues, allowing citizens to provide input and feedback. Information about these consultations, including discussion papers and reports, is often made publicly available to ensure transparency in the decision-making process.
While these initiatives contribute to a more transparent and accountable government, challenges exist, including concerns about data quality, accessibility, and the need for ongoing improvements in transparency practices (Clarke 2019).
Citations:
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. “Open Government.” http://open.canada.ca/en
Clarke, Amanda. 2019. Opening the Government of Canada: The Federal Bureaucracy in the Digital Age. Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press.